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

[Brazil]

You will not destroy my wand with a couple disolves and seeking dispells.

I estimate that i have tried to dissolve wands around 20 times.
I have failed doing so a total of one time. (due to an unexpected armor ward.)

Spending your Action Marker to nullify the enemy and then your Quickcast to Dissolve (having 9 mana) results in a destroyed wand almost always.

Divine intervention - so be it. The priestess needs to get positional advantage as well in order for this to be worth it. The nulify stays and isnt wasted so its 12 mana vs 5 mana. (unless she choose to reveal during nullify cast, but then she spends 12 mana vs 2 mana.)

Transfusion+nullify combo. In order for this to work you need to have a hidding enchantment on your mage as well otherwise i just seeking dispell your creature with 2 face down enchantments and then dissolve ur mage.
If you do this you spend 3 actions + an action casting mage wand and then i simply find other stuff to do taking advantage of you setting up an extreme overkill of Wand Destruction Emergency Plan.

Again, the point of this thread isn't "How to win the wand war" the point is, one player wins the wand war (keeps his wand and his opponent has no wand, either because they were destroyed or they just didn't bother to bring one), the player with the wand has a Huge advantage for the remainder of the game.

You have said your own playing crowd isn't very Wand centric - Mine is.   The people I play usually both use wands and commit resources to keeping their wand and destroying their opponent's wand.

Out of curiousity - What do you normally have in your spell books for for "Wand destruction"?   How many Disolves, explodes, dispells, and seeking dispells, and Steal Equipments? (and any other spells you use for Wand destruction?)   Additionally is your mage of choice the Priestess?  If not what and how much do you put in your spell book to counter "effects"?

[Brazil]

@ Brazil

The next time you play a game, take careful notes and post a detailed game report for us. You're obviously playing in a different local meta than most of us and I'd be fascinated to see how one of your games plays out. My local meta is very aggressive (as I think many are) and I think if I ever took the time to protect a wand that thoroughly I'd be dead before I had my wand defense set up.

This is not necessarily going to indicate much, as I vary my openings based on what type of opponent I'm facing.

If I'm facing a swarming/creature centric opponent, then after an initial Gate of Voltari, and channel boosters, I try to get two Gorgons and a Hydra on the map as quickly as possible.  And if I think my opponent is going to swarm me with little creatures, I'll put out a Mordock's Obelisk.  After that I'll start casting equipment defense and bring out equipment.   If my opponent comes in range, I'll a Mana Siphon on him.  I also have a Wizard's Tower I'll put out conditionally.

If my opponent is looking to charge ahead with his Wizard and fewer creatures, I'll get out the Gorgons, and maybe the Hydra sooner if I think he's going to try to get in the same square as me.  Then some enchantment defense and defensive enchantments, then gear.  And put the Obelisk on him much earlier.

If my opponent has a Mage that I don't think he'll be coming forward early game with, then getting a Wizards tower out earlier than later.  Once defenses are in place (creatures, gear protection, enchantments and gear, I'll force my opponent to come forward by wanding up a Thunderbolt and destroying things on his side of the map.)

If my opponent is playing the super annoying Priestess, I may need to Start Dropping Thunderbolts and move Gorgon's forward to take out his Temples.  (one of the few mages I actually have to more aggressive against)
Most mages I hole up and concentrate on defense rather than offense until my defenses are built up.  And Agressive Priestess's are the worst!   They do give me the most trouble.

[Aylin]

Brazil, what we're saying is that wands only matter if your book won't win until late in the game. If you start playing books that aim to win the early or mid games, wands won't help you; they'll just drain your resources. If you don't like how important wands are in the late-game, why don't you try different strategies instead of complaining about it?

[sdougla2]

Even when I play Gate of Voltari and have very strong attrition options, I find that I can often end the game before wands matter much.

[baronzaltor]

Wands don't change the strategy.  Play to counter the tactic/strategy the opponent is attempting to accomplish with his wand instead of focusing on the wand itself.

I never think "what if my opponent uses a wand?" when building a book or strategy.  I think in terms of how to match tactics.  The wand doesn't do anything you couldn't already do anyway.  I always assume an opponent has a spammable supply of any spells they run when choosing my moves, wether or not you put it on a wand doesn't change anything in my process.  If anything it makes it easier for me to read your plays and get ahead on action/mana.

Ive never seen a bound spell cast 6+ times, and never really seen a spell spammed that many times normally.. generally the game is either decided or over before it comes to such an extreme.

If my answer to your strategy is strong enough, the wand won't matter.  If my answer isn't strong enough, then theres a good chance you would have won without the wand anyway.

Thats not to say wands don't have a place in some builds, but it is a piece of a bigger machine and not a machine unto itself.

[jacksmack]

And Agressive Priestess's are the worst!   They do give me the most trouble.

But nothing a the good old Epic uber Harry Potter double cheese combo of Elemental wand + Magic Wand cant solve right?

[Brazil]

And Agressive Priestess's are the worst!   They do give me the most trouble.

But nothing a the good old Epic uber Harry Potter double cheese combo of Elemental wand + Magic Wand cant solve right?

You didn't actually answer my question about how much "Anti-Wand" you normally put in your spell book.


To answer your question, I win more than I lose against the Priestess.    But that might be due to skill level of the player, not the innate strength of the Mage. 

And I should probably say I play the Arcane Wizard mostly, who does have an advantage in the Wand Wars, in that my Dispels, and nullifies cost half what they cost everyone else.

[Brazil]

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.

Wait, do I get "Extra points" for being aggressive?   My win/loss ratio is very good.   Is it worth more to Win aggressively, than to win defensively?

I think I've done well against both Aggressive and passive opponents.  But I could concede that my opponent's may not be as strong as you guys.   

[Brazil]

Wands don't change the strategy.  Play to counter the tactic/strategy the opponent is attempting to accomplish with his wand instead of focusing on the wand itself.

I never think "what if my opponent uses a wand?" when building a book or strategy.  I think in terms of how to match tactics.  The wand doesn't do anything you couldn't already do anyway.  I always assume an opponent has a spammable supply of any spells they run when choosing my moves, wether or not you put it on a wand doesn't change anything in my process.  If anything it makes it easier for me to read your plays and get ahead on action/mana.

Ive never seen a bound spell cast 6+ times, and never really seen a spell spammed that many times normally.. generally the game is either decided or over before it comes to such an extreme.

If my answer to your strategy is strong enough, the wand won't matter.  If my answer isn't strong enough, then theres a good chance you would have won without the wand anyway.

Thats not to say wands don't have a place in some builds, but it is a piece of a bigger machine and not a machine unto itself.

It not about casting a particular spell a certain number of times, it's about being able to cast the spell you need, as many times as you need it, and having a wide variety with a small portion of my spell book.

With a Wand and one each of the following:
Dispel
Disolve
Heal
Insert your favorite attack spell
Regenerate

With under 15 spell points for the spells listed above, I have the power to destroy as many items, and enchantments, as my opponent casts, I can heal 8 dice in damage per turn (endlessly if needed), I can cast attack spells endlessly.    Wands afford you a variety of options. 
If my opponent is relying on tanking himself up with equipment or enchantments I can destroy everything he puts on, no matter how many he put in his book, if I need to weather an onslaught of direct damage spells, as I pointed out I can heal 8 dice a turn, every turn until my opponent runs out of direct damage.  If it's creature wars, it's my creatures VS his creatures, and I can support my creatures with an endless supply of direct damage or healing.

Wands allow for a diverse options for countering opponent's options.    This is why it seems the winner of the wand war gains a huge upper hand.

It seems to me listening to the way you guys describe your books, that you can force a game to end in 7-10 turns.   And I think that's quite reasonable if both players are playing "attacking" decks without much in the way of defense.   But it's been my experience, particularly with the Arcane Mage, that I can hold off aggressive decks and stretch out games, until my opponent runs out of resources, then turn the game in my favor.  (If I win the Wand War), if I lose the wand war, then I know I have a limited time to beat my opponent before I run out of resources.  (Or at least the resources that I want for critical situations.)

At least that's been my experience.   

[jacksmack]

And Agressive Priestess's are the worst!   They do give me the most trouble.

But nothing a the good old Epic uber Harry Potter double cheese combo of Elemental wand + Magic Wand cant solve right?

You didn't actually answer my question about how much "Anti-Wand" you normally put in your spell book.


To answer your question, I win more than I lose against the Priestess.    But that might be due to skill level of the player, not the innate strength of the Mage. 

And I should probably say I play the Arcane Wizard mostly, who does have an advantage in the Wand Wars, in that my Dispels, and nullifies cost half what they cost everyone else.

Standard is 3 dissolves. Some books have 5-6 a few has just 2 or maybe even 1. Uber aggro books dont have time to dissolve. They work around it.
You add regen belt or i expect you to start healing? i drop Deathlock.
You armor up? i drop acid balls.
You drop wand and facedown enchantment? thank you sir - i do something else. If i lose it is not because of
your wand.

I seem to be dissolving less and less mainly due to acid ball.


The Gate Wizard was horribly strong pre DvsN. Mainly because of the high mana generation from gate, the solid defensive arcane creatures AND because the wizard could armor up and voltaric shield himself to live long enough for the hydras and gorgons to get out.
The wands only played a minor role in this strategy. If any1 challenged you to wand wars they applied the wrong tactics strategy.


Anyway. Your impossible to argue with. You got your local meta and assume there is problems with wands.
People here with differnet metas and the online meta from OCTGN tells you wands are fine. Hell there has even been threads about wands sucks...

The only way to find out is if you make your way to OCTGN and show us how powerful spamming spells from wands actually is.... until i see it wreck havoc i wont believe it.

[webcatcher]

This is not necessarily going to indicate much, as I vary my openings based on what type of opponent I'm facing.

It's not really the specific moves of the opening I'm concerned about. What I mean is that if your local meta focuses heavily on defense or long openings then your games will tend to be very long and, yes, wands will matter more. That doesn't mean wands are too powerful, though, that just means they're an effective part of your strategy. Where I'm from, the dominant builds are very fast solo/few creature builds or BM swarms with the Lair and they all open very quickly and end the game very quickly. I think a wand-dependent build would do less well in my meta because the game isn't going to last that long and I think you'll be left with the choice of either not getting your wand defenses set up properly and getting it dispelled or spending the actions to get it set up properly and then being so far behind that it's too late (2 nullifies, 1 enchantment transfusion, and 1 wand are 2 entire turns of actions, which is maybe 25% of all the turns there are going to be if your opponent is playing aggressively).

The only way to find out is if you make your way to OCTGN and show us how powerful spamming spells from wands actually is.... until i see it wreck havoc i wont believe it.

This is why I wanted the game report.

[sIKE]

This is not necessarily going to indicate much, as I vary my openings based on what type of opponent I'm facing.

It's not really the specific moves of the opening I'm concerned about. What I mean is that if your local meta focuses heavily on defense or long openings then your games will tend to be very long and, yes, wands will matter more. That doesn't mean wands are too powerful, though, that just means they're an effective part of your strategy. Where I'm from, the dominant builds are very fast solo/few creature builds or BM swarms with the Lair and they all open very quickly and end the game very quickly. I think a wand-dependent build would do less well in my meta because the game isn't going to last that long and I think you'll be left with the choice of either not getting your wand defenses set up properly and getting it dispelled or spending the actions to get it set up properly and then being so far behind that it's too late (2 nullifies, 1 enchantment transfusion, and 1 wand are 2 entire turns of actions, which is maybe 25% of all the turns there are going to be if your opponent is playing aggressively).

The only way to find out is if you make your way to OCTGN and show us how powerful spamming spells from wands actually is.... until i see it wreck havoc i wont believe it.

This is why I wanted the game report.

Or even worse, having the Wand setup, Wan defenses setup, and being forced to do something other than what you have bound to the wand. You are then forced to either do that "something else" or pay the three mana and swap out the spell bound to that wand with that "something else" and end up for practical purposes with only one action (quick or full). Don't say Battleforge as that is during the Deployment Phase, what I am talking about happens after during the Action phases. Get caught like that a couple of times and you will start thinking like the rest of us: Wand - meh.

[haslo]

Wands are good, just very unflexible. If both sides are enamored with wands, then wands are the best thing ever, because nobody does anything unexpected (as both sides are busy building up their wand fortress). If one side consequently plays around the opposing side having a wand, they aren't anywhere near as good.

[wtcannonjr]

It seems to me listening to the way you guys describe your books, that you can force a game to end in 7-10 turns.   And I think that's quite reasonable if both players are playing "attacking" decks without much in the way of defense.   But it's been my experience, particularly with the Arcane Mage, that I can hold off aggressive decks and stretch out games, until my opponent runs out of resources, then turn the game in my favor. 

I think many of the responses on this board come from players who are living in the Tournament meta of this game. Consequently aggressive attack decks are favored in this meta in order to maximize damage dealt to the opponent mage within a given time period. As I understand the current Tournament meta a player is not rewarded for playing defense as much since damage dealt is the tie breaker. Games do not "stretch out" as you say since they must be completed within a set time limit.

However, I do agree with an earlier post that if the 'wand war' bothers you, then take up the challenge to try other deck designs / mages that focus on defeating this type of strategy. For example, what mage and spellbook can you develop that does not rely on equipment or enchantments that must remain in play for long periods to be effective? Every mage has a focus of their power - find one that doesn't need a wand.

[Brazil]

Or even worse, having the Wand setup, Wan defenses setup, and being forced to do something other than what you have bound to the wand. You are then forced to either do that "something else" or pay the three mana and swap out the spell bound to that wand with that "something else" and end up for practical purposes with only one action (quick or full). Don't say Battleforge as that is during the Deployment Phase, what I am talking about happens after during the Action phases. Get caught like that a couple of times and you will start thinking like the rest of us: Wand - meh.

I agree this does happen sometimes.   But (in my opinion), I think it's better to be able to swap the bound spell and do what you need to do, and always have that option available, rather than "try to guess which spells I'll need and in which quantity I'll need them, be wrong, and not be able to deal with something."   

Without a wand - Do I put 3, 4, or 6 Dispels in my Book?   6 Dispels for a non-Arcane Mage would be 12 points worth of spells!  (that's a full 10% of my allotment.)  And what if my opponent isn't using enchantmens...then that was a waist.  What if he has more than 6 enchantments in his book....everything beyond 6, I now have no way to deal with.    Same thing for Equipment.  Do I commit another 10% of my allocation of spells to deal with 6 pieces of equipment I may want to dissolve.  What if he has more than 6, now I need "Explodes" or "Steal equipment (based on the cost of the items I'll have to deal with...which I don't know when I'm constructing my books).  How much of my book do I commit to this?    I have no way of knowing how much I'll need, and if I don't bring enough, then I can't deal with problem items my opponent may cast after I'm out of Dissolves.

With the wand life is much simpler - ONE wand and ONE Dispel gets rid of as many Enchantments as I need to get rid of.  That's 6 total points of my allocation that's 5% of my build total.  So it cost me 5% instead of 10% and has unlimited uses.  (much more efficient).  AND if I can deal with both objects and enchantments with ONE wand ONE Dispell, and ONE Dissolve all for 8 spell points - That's 7.5% of my build total, and I'm dealing with as many of BOTH Equipment and Enchantments.  But wait, there's more!

What if my opponent throws an Earth Elemental, Iron Golum or some other big SLOW creature, with One Force Push I can now keep that elemental away from my Mage and Spawning point (or whatever I want to keep him away from), until my ranged attackers can whittle him down.  And that's only another 2 points.  So now I can deal with ALL Enchantments, ALL Equipment and cast Push as much as I need to for still under the 10% of my Book total someone without a wand would need to commit to just deal with 6 Enchantments.

But wait...there's more want to add an unlimited amount of healing?  add ONE Heal card, unlimited Teleportation,  ONE Teleport.... Never run out of any of the creatures you cast .... One Resurrection.  The price of setting up some wand protection, and the price of having to pay 3 mana and a quick cast action to swap spells I think is an excellent value in all of the diversity it affords me.

I don't know about you guys, but I'm never satisfied with the contents of my spell book.  Once I reach 120 points there are still a bunch of cards I want to put in my book that I might need.   And I'm someone who uses wands in almost every book I build.   If I didn't have the wands, I'd have to guess in the dark as to how much of many things I'll need, risk being wrong and come up against something I can't deal with.....and I'll have less room in my spell book to put the things I think I'll need for offense in there.

You guys who end games in 7-10 turns....when you build your spell books you must get about 60 points in and go...."That's it", that's all I'll need to win.   I'll just put 60 points worth of utility spells in here "Just in case".   Is that the way it works for you?   Not me - When I build books, I try to think of what I'll need.  "What if my opponent does this?" do I have the spells to deal with that, what if he's doing this?  Then I'll need these spells too... I pretty much never get to a point where I think "I have everything I'll need in my spellbook" before I hit 120 points....heck, even at 120 points, there are always a handful of cards I need to guess and make compromises on due to the limit.   Without wands it would be horrible, I'd just have to build decks that I know have glaring weaknesses.