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

[tarkin84]

@Brazil:

Running just one copy of those key incantations (Teleport, Dispel, Dissolve mainly) is not a good idea, IMO. Sure, once you bind it to the wand you can spam the spell until the wand gets dissolved. And it will get dissolved if your opponent wants to, leaving you with no extra copies of those incantations. So once you've lost your Dissolve wand you will not be able to deal with any piece of equipment (same for Teleport and Dispel).

In my defensive builds I usually play 2 wands (to replace the first one once it's gone), but I also run 2-3 Teleports, 3-4 Dispel and 3-4 Dissolve. Not only I will have access to more copies of the bound spell when my opponent destroys my wand, but I have not always a free action to cast the wand and then QC the bound spell, especially against an aggressive opponent.

Wands are very important when both players aim for the long-term game. But that will not always happen and, even in that scenario, winning the wand war is far from winning the match. Who cares about wands when I telekill your mage into a Golem pit?

[Aylin]

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.

Turning unused Dispels into a part of the human body would be quite a feat.

Without wands it would be horrible, I'd just have to build decks that I know have glaring weaknesses.

The thing is you're already building books with a glaring weakness; your wands. With only a single copy of all these different utility spells, it's very very easy for an opponent to see what you can do on any given round, and then play around that. If you lose your wand while it has an important spell attached to it, you're sunk. Why would you intentionally put this weakness in?

[baronzaltor]

The problem is if you run 1 dispel, 1 dissolve and so on then use a wand.. you cannot cast those spells with out the wand.

If Im using equipment AND enchantments instead of overloading on one  then you then are forced to choose which to purge or spend actions and mana swapping out your wand.  If you are constantly swapping out your wand you are going to get buried by tempo loss and mana spending.  Basically swapping wands turns quick action spells into full actions. 

If you are spamming heals, then get a poison blood dropped on you… are you going to swap to a dispel just to purge that and then swap back to the heal to keep spamming or are you going to spend your only dispel… which will then leave you high and dry when I add in a ghoul rot and a mage bane.

having 1-2 copies + a wand paints you into a bad corner.   
Ive seen the "swiss army wand" before… but you are basically having to reload a musket whenever you need a key spell changed out, while the opponent can just change gears with out a sacrifice his own pace or agenda.  Wands allow unlimited use of one spell, but without multiple copies you can't access all of them as freely when you need.

[Brazil]

@Brazil:

Running just one copy of those key incantations (Teleport, Dispel, Dissolve mainly) is not a good idea, IMO. Sure, once you bind it to the wand you can spam the spell until the wand gets dissolved. And it will get dissolved if your opponent wants to, leaving you with no extra copies of those incantations. So once you've lost your Dissolve wand you will not be able to deal with any piece of equipment (same for Teleport and Dispel).

In my defensive builds I usually play 2 wands (to replace the first one once it's gone), but I also run 2-3 Teleports, 3-4 Dispel and 3-4 Dissolve. Not only I will have access to more copies of the bound spell when my opponent destroys my wand, but I have not always a free action to cast the wand and then QC the bound spell, especially against an aggressive opponent.

Wands are very important when both players aim for the long-term game. But that will not always happen and, even in that scenario, winning the wand war is far from winning the match. Who cares about wands when I telekill your mage into a Golem pit?

Right, which brings us right back to my original point about "how important winning the Wand War is ..... basically the Harry Potter effect".   It's all a trade off, you seem to be accounting for the eventuality of having your wand destroyed and  having a backup in place.  (this consumes more of you spell book as now you are needing multiple copies of all your utility spells)  I choose instead to put a little more effort into wand defense in the first place, thereby reducing the chances of losing my wand thereby eliminating the need for "backup spell copies" or "backup wands".   I do realize this does make me more vulnerable should I lose my wand(s), but it also makes me stronger defending my wands in the first place.

All that said, as most of you seem pretty doggedly convinced "Wands are bad", I'm trying to construct a few books without wands, (or at least less reliant on wands), but as of now, building those books seems to leave me feeling my books are far more vulnerable than my normal wand books.

[Brazil]

Turning unused Dispels into a part of the human body would be quite a feat.

Damn, busted on bad spelling.   (wasted...is that better)?

The thing is you're already building books with a glaring weakness; your wands. With only a single copy of all these different utility spells, it's very very easy for an opponent to see what you can do on any given round, and then play around that. If you lose your wand while it has an important spell attached to it, you're sunk. Why would you intentionally put this weakness in?

And here I think the opposite.

I commit strongly to defending my wand.   Precisely so that I don't lose it.  (but admittedly I do lose it sometimes, and yes I am probably in a worse position if I do.)

But everything is a trade off.  It breaks down like this:

I can commit about 15% of my spell book to utility spells (by using ONE of each)  And with this much commitment I have the ability to deal with nearly everything.  Equipment, Enchantments, variety of Direct damage, healing, Teleporting, Pushing.... I think I account for nearly every contingent.

Then I commit another 15% of my spell book to keeping my wands safe.

This leaves me with (unlimited ability to deal with everything), and a strong chance of winning the wand war.  And it leaves 70% of my book free for my own Creatures and other Defenses and Offensive game planning.

If you're going to put multiple copied of spells in your spell book then you are either committing well more than 15% to Utility spells, which means you have to make a trade-off.  Either you don't have as complete of a variety of utility spells as me, or you have less wand defense, and/or less than 70% of your book remaining for your main offensive/defensive strategy.

I do pay a penalty in the 3 points of mana and consumed Quick action for changing out my wand spell.   But I feel like the price is worth it in not having to give up the vast amount of utility at such a small cost to my spell book total.   I have been known to on occasion to put more than one Disolve, seeking Dispell, or Wand in my book.....but currently I'm not....but that option all falls under the category of "Best way to win the Harry Potter wand battle" not the whole overall question which I'm asking here, which is"   "I think wands are too powerful, and consequently make the "who wins the Harry Potter Wand battle" way to critical in determining the outcome of the game.

[webcatcher]

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".

Yes.  In an average game I'll use most of my core spells and one or two of my just-in-case spells.

All that said, as most of you seem pretty doggedly convinced "Wands are bad", I'm trying to construct a few books without wands, (or at least less reliant on wands), but as of now, building those books seems to leave me feeling my books are far more vulnerable than my normal wand books.

As Carl Sagan famously said,  extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Without a solid game report or an octgn game someone here can reference, most people are probably going to continue to think that wands are situational and not over powered in most metas.

[Brazil]

If you are spamming heals, then get a poison blood dropped on you… are you going to swap to a dispel just to purge that and then swap back to the heal to keep spamming or are you going to spend your only dispel… which will then leave you high and dry when I add in a ghoul rot and a mage bane.

having 1-2 copies + a wand paints you into a bad corner.   
Ive seen the "swiss army wand" before… but you are basically having to reload a musket whenever you need a key spell changed out, while the opponent can just change gears with out a sacrifice his own pace or agenda.  Wands allow unlimited use of one spell, but without multiple copies you can't access all of them as freely when you need.

And see I think when I "Steal Enchantment" and put someone's Ghoul Rot or Mage Bane back onto them, I actually feel that they are "Sacrificing their own pace and agenda".  Or when I steal their Bear Strength, or blow up the weapon or armor they're using....all these things do have a negative impact on my opponent's agenda"  Or if he blows through his direct damage while I am healing my self back up at 8 dice per turn....eventually he will run out of attack spells.  (And I'm not out of healing, attack spells or creatures (cuz I can resurrect ALL my dead ones).

It's all a trade off.  Let me ask the same thing back at you people who don't use wands.   What do you do about Ghoul Rot, or Mage Bane....or your opponent having some annoying enchantments (like Vampirism) or Equipment....and you've run out of Disolves or Dispells.   Aren't you in a pickle then?   If you're not using a wand you can only consume 10% of your spell book on 6 Dispells.  You could consume a bunch more of your spell book if you wanted multiple Steal Enchantments as well.   The problem here is if someone is going to commit to something, they are likely going to do it strongly.  Not just one or two ghoul Rots and Mage bane's but a whole bunch of them.  AND if you're being Enchantment heavy, it would be wise to pack your book with Enchantments....you put 5-6 bad enchantments in your book, and they get dispelled...you put 20 enchantment in your book and you get to keep 60-70% of them (when your opponent runs out of Dispells and steal enchantments.)...you save a few aweful ones for last and he has no way to deal with them.    But, if you face a wand deck and you didn't win the Harry Potter battle, he can now deal with ALL your enchantments.    And the same thing for an equipment intensive deck.  If your opponent isn't using a wand, then you get to keep all your equipment when your opponent runs out of Dissolves.

This is precisely why I think wands are so powerful, and why consequently winning the Harry Potter Wand battle is so critical.

[sIKE]

@Brazil

Load up OCTGN, load your books in and lets have a spin, just don't play Charmyna as you will rue the day, as I still do. When you read about Watergate Wizard the point to it is that 6 Dispels and 6 Dissolves only cost 12 spellbook points. You cast Battleforge and then suits up in his armor during the Ready Stage, sets a Wizard Tower up during his action phase and starts blowing your mage up, all the while out forth pour creatures. The wand in this scenario does very little for you, your wasting ACTIONS while his number of actions keep growing.

It is not a fast book, but very deadly.

[Aylin]

Brazil, you seem to be utterly missing the point of what we're saying. At this point I don't think words will get through to you. So let's set up a time to play on OCTGN, and we'll see whose book wins.

[Shad0w]

I have been playing MW since the winter of 2011 as a play tester. From what I have seen when a game is played in a tourney style format with a 75 - 90 minute clock and a 2min planning phase(so people can't try to burn the clock)

 Each time a player casts a wand they have an advantage in terms of spell options but same player loses out in action and mana efficiency. A wand does not gain any actions in fact each time you change the spell out you are losing tempo, quick action and mana. When you look at this over the extent of a game you will see the why wands fell out of favor. Lets say you change out a spell 2x you have lost about 6-11 mana (if you count the wand cast), 2 quick action(3 if you count the wand cast). When looking at new cards we check to see how the card would function in many different builds. Not once have we ever said / thought "This card is too overpowered because wands exist"

[DeckBuilder]

I've avoided this thread because I seem to disagree with the common consensus here that "Wands are bad"
In the right build, I contend that Wands can be amazing

I play Wizards a lot (or used to until my local meta stopped playing Mage Wars because "Teleport is broken" etc)
When I start building a Wizard's book, I load up a default skeleton build on my Excel builder...

1 Battle Forge (4/3)
2 Mana Crystal (2)
1 Wizard's Tower (2)

1 Arcane Ring (1)
1 Moonglow Amulet (1)
1 Elemental Cloak (1)
1 Dragonscale Hauberk (1-2)
1 Leather Gloves (1)
1 Elemental Wand (2)
4 Mage Wand [8]

4 Teleport [8]
4 Dissolve (8/4)
1 Purge Magic (3)
4 Dispel (4)
2 Seeking Dispel (2) - for control match-ups or if target has 1 hidden enchant (cost 1 with ring)

6 Nullify (6) - disrupt/delay protection, root out Nullify like Decoy (sets up disrupt if none there)
3 Harmonize (3)
1 Rhino Hide (2)

1-2 Hurl Boulder (4)
1-2 Fireball (4)
1-2 Surging Wave (2)
1-2 Jet Stream (2)

I then add my "strategy" creature base + support, adding and culling the above
I posted some quickly-devised examples (Fire, Earth Swarm, Air) in this thread
http://forum.arcanewonders.com/index.php?topic=13316.msg26545#msg26545
Although those were before the FAQ and I cringe at some build mistakes there

Anyway, I have a lot of success in my local meta playing Wizard + Teleport Wands
Especially if you got a Forge to switch your Wand spell for no action, often 0 mana
The power to always be able to Teleport anything with Slow monsters is too much

Why not Wand + Steal Enchantment?
I find Steal Enchantment to be situational (don't work with Devouring Jelly/Iron Golem/Whirling Spirit)
I appreciate the action-saving value but often I prefer to (simply threaten) a Purge all buffs or curses
If Wardstones become more prevalent in my meta (only I play Mana Denial), then I would consider it
Steal Artifact is even more situational with so many Mage Exclusive pieces and limited mage item slots
Yes, it's a nice idea (especially as it's range 2) so maybe in a Hydras + Thornlashers build, it may work

So what I would add to the debate here is:
1. Mage Wand does not let you skimp on Incants (Tower and Elemental lets you skimp on Attack spells)
2. Wands do allow you to focus on a range 2 spell (above Dissolve range) and abuse it with other spells
3. The hate they attract (2 spell action burst at range 1 due to Nullify) also protects your other equipment
4. Wand Control requires discipline to win within a time limit so if your opponent plays slowly, change tack
5. Give up on playing Wand Control if facing the Druid (a vine range Dissolve that bypasses Nullify - gulp!)

Wands do play a part in Mage Wars, but mainly playing Wizard Control
Wands act as an insurance policy to pursue a particular strategy

[sIKE]

You are running multiples, which is fine if you want to spend the action on the wand to cast one of your 4 Dispels. His argument is to run one of each kind of spell and swap them out, with a lot of defenses on the wand. We have just been saying dissolve the Wand and you have lost your Dissolve or your Dispel and now you have to spend another action to spin up another Wand and its defenses. Therefore it is very much not a war of wands.

He has mentioned nothing about Forge and swapping wands that way, but once again that is done during Upkeep and not during action Phases. If you have the wrong spell bound you are screwed. As a wizard I would prefer to add in more teleports, dissolves, and dispels instead of wands....

I do think that your meta never worked out a well done counter wand strategy and therefore the hate on teleport by the meta. Plus the golem pit you so much like plays into this as well. But we have had this conversation before....

[DeckBuilder]

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.

[sIKE]

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

[webcatcher]

I've avoided this thread because I seem to disagree with the common consensus here that "Wands are bad"

To be fair, I don't think most of use are saying that wands are useless, we're just disagreeing with the OP's statement that they are...hang on, let me find it...

the single most important factor in determining the outcome of the game.