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

[Brazil]

So I have only played a few dozen games but I am one of the stronger players in my play group. ( I'm just qualifying that I'm a solid player but not necessarily a "Master".)

So the Harry Potter mechanic - is Wand Wars.    It appears that if one player can blow up the other player's wand while not getting his own blown up, that gives that player a nearly overwhelming advantage.   (Rarely when I play, if I'm able to be the player who's wands live, do I lose the game.)

This I believe is caused by a number of factors - Direct damage spells can be super potent, that and the ability to put teleport on a wand, can keep your Mage out of danger while he plinks away at creature and/or temples.  Not to mention putting Resurrection on a wand means you never lose the battle of "Ran out of Creatures in Spell Book".    It's hard to build an effective spell book based on Direct damage, because you run out of spells too fast unless you bind your direct damage to a wand.    Too many creatures to deal with and opposing mage to deal with.   You'd have to commit a huge portion of your spell book to direct damage, and that would leave you woefully short on Creatures and other utility spells you'd need to deal with problems that come up.

Someone who builds a deck based on creatures could probably get away without a wand....but the clock is ticking, the longer the game goes, the higher the risk of running out of creatures, where as this is not an issue for the Wanded caster.

The game can get really ugly really fast if something gets cast that you can't deal with like a nasty Curse put on you when you're out of disenchants.  So it's pretty important to stock up on those....but you only get 6.  Where as a mage who's wand hasn't blown up, by only having one disenchant in your spell book can cast it an unlimited number of times if he can keep his wand safe.

So the just of what I'm getting at is:  It seems to me that wands are just way too important in the game.   The game is often won or lost by blowing up your opponent's wand while keeping your own safe.  That seems to be the single most important factor in determining the outcome of the game.   I'm likening it to a Harry Potter wizard battle, whomever successfully casts "Dispelliamus" and disarms the opposing wizard wins.   (Of course that analogy is a bit exaggerated.  It is still possible to win without wands, but I have to say that the advantage is hugely in the favor of the mage who wins the wand battle.

Things to solve the problem:
Cantrips to me seem to be the biggest possible solution to the wand issue.   The biggest problem is when a mage can no longer deal with something;   He runs out of creatures to throw into the frey, or gets cursed and runs out of disenchants or gets hit with effects, and can't get rid of them (Like Weakness).   If there were utility cantrips out there that did everything you need to do, like disenchant, or get rid of conditions, or resurrection(Or animate dead...for evil folk) and the spell were a cantrip....but one that was harder or more expensive to cast than the non-cantrip version....at least every mage could still fall back on a cantrip to deal with something.

Another option is make Wands indestructible (By rule).   Then the wand battle goes away.   Just make a rule that "Spellbound" objects can't be destroyed.

Or maybe just release some "Indestructible Wands".

If the wands can't be blown up, then the focus of the game will turn away from trying to blow up each other's wands.   

I don't know that that's the best solution, but something. (I believe is needed),  to take the focus away from the early game "Wand battle" that can be so critical to the outcome of the game.

[Sailor Vulcan]

I've played a few games so far and other people have talked about their spellbooks on this forum, and I've yet to see anyone having this issue. What kinds of spellbook builds are the people in your playgroup using? The metagame of your playgroup might be more of the problem, rather than the metagame of Mage Wars as a whole.

[Diji]

I agree with Imaginator. I've never encountered a problem similar to the one you describe.

Unless I anticipate a longer match I rarely consider either of the two wands. I prefer having two or three copies of spells I use often. Does your play group have multiple core sets and/or spell tomes 1 or 2 purchased? In your description it seems that the wands are used to extend the playability of cards that players don't readily have an abundance of. If card availability is not the problem then perhaps there is dead space in player spell books (spells that get little to no use). Post your book build in spellbook construction; I'm sure the community will pitch you some solid adjustment ideas.

Also, I completely agree that spellbound objects should never be able to be destroyed. INVINCIBLE THOUGHTSPORES... FOREVAR!

But here's the thing... they'll never do it. 

[Fentum]

One of the things I love about this game is the variety of viable approaches.

This thread suggests that wands are uber important. A previous thread suggests they are an inefficient mana sink.

Who knows?

Local metas will have a profound effect on the efficacy of particular spells.

My own take is that wands can be part of a good wizard control deck. Elsewhere there is always the risk of a dissolve taking out quite a bit of mana investment. Should I then protect my wand? But that tue up even more mana...

Choices, choices! Love it.

[Shad0w]

People play wands in touney builds?

In 80% of the build I have seen wands do not get used or are a toss in due to extra points.

[reddawn]

People play wands in touney builds?

In 80% of the build I have seen wands do not get used or are a toss in due to extra points.

This. 

The spellbind mechanic is a neat idea, but paying 5 mana to essentially do nothing is not great.  I'd easily play a familiar before I'd play a wand.

[Texan85]

So I have only played a few dozen games but I am one of the stronger players in my play group. ( I'm just qualifying that I'm a solid player but not necessarily a "Master".)

So the Harry Potter mechanic - is Wand Wars.    It appears that if one player can blow up the other player's wand while not getting his own blown up, that gives that player a nearly overwhelming advantage.   (Rarely when I play, if I'm able to be the player who's wands live, do I lose the game.)

This I believe is caused by a number of factors - Direct damage spells can be super potent, that and the ability to put teleport on a wand, can keep your Mage out of danger while he plinks away at creature and/or temples.  Not to mention putting Resurrection on a wand means you never lose the battle of "Ran out of Creatures in Spell Book".    It's hard to build an effective spell book based on Direct damage, because you run out of spells too fast unless you bind your direct damage to a wand.    Too many creatures to deal with and opposing mage to deal with.   You'd have to commit a huge portion of your spell book to direct damage, and that would leave you woefully short on Creatures and other utility spells you'd need to deal with problems that come up.

Someone who builds a deck based on creatures could probably get away without a wand....but the clock is ticking, the longer the game goes, the higher the risk of running out of creatures, where as this is not an issue for the Wanded caster.

The game can get really ugly really fast if something gets cast that you can't deal with like a nasty Curse put on you when you're out of disenchants.  So it's pretty important to stock up on those....but you only get 6.  Where as a mage who's wand hasn't blown up, by only having one disenchant in your spell book can cast it an unlimited number of times if he can keep his wand safe.

So the just of what I'm getting at is:  It seems to me that wands are just way too important in the game.   The game is often won or lost by blowing up your opponent's wand while keeping your own safe.  That seems to be the single most important factor in determining the outcome of the game.   I'm likening it to a Harry Potter wizard battle, whomever successfully casts "Dispelliamus" and disarms the opposing wizard wins.   (Of course that analogy is a bit exaggerated.  It is still possible to win without wands, but I have to say that the advantage is hugely in the favor of the mage who wins the wand battle.

Things to solve the problem:
Cantrips to me seem to be the biggest possible solution to the wand issue.   The biggest problem is when a mage can no longer deal with something;   He runs out of creatures to throw into the frey, or gets cursed and runs out of disenchants or gets hit with effects, and can't get rid of them (Like Weakness).   If there were utility cantrips out there that did everything you need to do, like disenchant, or get rid of conditions, or resurrection(Or animate dead...for evil folk) and the spell were a cantrip....but one that was harder or more expensive to cast than the non-cantrip version....at least every mage could still fall back on a cantrip to deal with something.

Another option is make Wands indestructible (By rule).   Then the wand battle goes away.   Just make a rule that "Spellbound" objects can't be destroyed.

Or maybe just release some "Indestructible Wands".

If the wands can't be blown up, then the focus of the game will turn away from trying to blow up each other's wands.   

I don't know that that's the best solution, but something. (I believe is needed),  to take the focus away from the early game "Wand battle" that can be so critical to the outcome of the game.

You make a lot of assumptions that are incorrect, and most likely because your play group isn't large or you don't get a challenge.

No one will go into a game without being ready to trash the Opponents wands, and honestly when everyone takes into account the wands then it is no longer an issue, and will likely rotate out of spell books because they are a Kill on sight item. So then what's wrong with them?

And before Harry potter, wands existed and have been about of fantasy genre, so it is honestly a thing that has always been in the game.

Secondly, the spell bound to the wand has to be paid for, so aside from not having to have more than one, there is no great advantage unless you cast it more times than copies of that spell in your book. Also it's a risk because if you cast the wand and it is dissolved you lose mana and take a hit in whatever strategy you want to develop.

[sdougla2]

My immediate thought is that you're not being aggressive enough. Having a wand when your opponent is out of ways to destroy equipment can give you a huge advantage in a severely protracted game, but if the game ends on turn 7, it probably wasn't worth it.

[Paleblue]

I found the OP quite an interesting read - simply to get a perspective on a different meta. Currently the only wand I use is the holy one which can remove various effects (mainly weakness), otherwise I don't see very much value in the spell bound versions.

It sounds like your games are going for a long time, whats your average play time?

[nitrodavid]

i have to agree with the notion that your assumptions are terribly wrong, on the borderline of trolling. but I know nobody in the MW community would do that.

when I first started playing we had 6 hour long games that resembled more like Sim city then Mage wars. I would agree in those games wands ate vital.

but every comp game I played has ended in less then 20 turns. ask your self what you need your wand for? for example I used to run wand+battle fury. but the wand would be dissolved after in use it once. now I run 3 battle fury.

there are very few spells that I consider worthy to attach to wand/helm
battle fury, charge (for iron golems), and attack spells.

just for a laugh try a game where your core involves a combination of spells that kill the other mage before turn 10. (this usally means 110 mana of spells to make 32-38 damage). see if there wands help them then.

[jmoodie]

I like the idea of wands, but much like spawnpoints, they are not as useful as they first seem.

I've seen new players that at first assumed that a wand spell was free. As stated above, make sure you all realize that you still have to pay for the wanded spell.

Otherwise, I think this is a product of local meta/groupthink. I rarely use a wand, and if I do it's usu for something very specific to that game. They need to be cheap to be worth it, but they're (currently) too easy to dissolve to waste the ap.

[nitrodavid]

place a wand with decoy as a "bluff" (stated in rules as OK). make it get dispelled, all enchantments turn face up when dispelled. the enchantment states you get 2 mana when it is destroyed. all of a sudden you have a 2 mana advantage over other mage and made them waste a dissolve (2 points) for a wand + decoy (2+1 for arcane, or any element school)

[Paleblue]

place a wand with decoy as a "bluff" (stated in rules as OK). make it get dispelled, all enchantments turn face up when dispelled. the enchantment states you get 2 mana when it is destroyed. all of a sudden you have a 2 mana advantage over other mage and made them waste a dissolve (2 points) for a wand + decoy (2+1 for arcane, or any element school)

Errm, no wand lets you spell bind an enchantment so how would this work?

[nitrodavid]

(rule book p15) note: you may assign a spell to your familiar that you do not intend to cast (or cannot cast) as a "bluff"

this is a note so not a rule, so I assumed it worked for spellbound spells you don't intend on using. it matches thematically and is based on a similar rule (familiar v spellbound)

remember you don't cast decoy you keep it face down and it auto reveals when it is destroyed

[HeatStryke]

Per the rulebook's spellbind section

When you cast a spell with the Spellbind trait,
you may immediately bind a spell to it. You can
choose any spell from your spellbook that fulfills the
limitations on the Spellbind object. For example, the
Mage Wand can only bind an incantation spell, so
you could not bind an attack spell or enchantment
to it. Place the bound spell face down under the
Spellbind object.

You cannot bind decoy on a magewand. Even if you could, when the mage wand is destroyed the decoy would be revealed without effect as it was never cast.