So here we come to the crux of the issue - I assert that this trick cannot be played around effectively.
Well, there is no plan B against DI because DI works against plan B too. If you summon medium creatures the Priestess can bring out Knights of Westlock, and she'll have one more than you will because she can cancel one of your creatures. She can match or beat you on equipment because you won't be able to get the Battle Forge down.
We actually are talking about two different topics that need to be addressed. First, there's the threat of Divine Intervention. Your opponent has paid a premium to put this threat on your head, 8 mana and their entire first round. I'm not quite saying that you should ignore this threat. You should definitely adjust your strategy to accommodate it and not cast any insanely expensive spells that would cripple you to lose. If your spell book does not include a way to win without such expensive spells, then yeah you are pretty screwed. Your only hope is to try to eliminate the threat head on with a dispel war which your opponent has the advantage in or to hope they ARE bluffing and call them on it.
Assuming you have a plan B though, this threat doesn't hurt you much. Switch to plan B and play it out. If your opponent never reveals Divine Intervention, they have hurt themselves more than they've hurt you. They are at both a mana deficit and an action deficit behind you.
Now, if they do reveal Divine Intervention, we have switched topics. We are no longer talking about a threat, we are talking about an actuality. It is time to assess the damage. Since we were not casting any really expensive spells, they have most likely countered a medium creature or conjuration. They are out 18 mana and cost us lets theorize somewhere around 15 mana. They may have also cost us a Full Action (possibly two if you held a card back on round one, but if you could have cast it round one I think you should have gone ahead and traded actions then) compared to their Quick Action. They have also used up an Epic spell.
Overall, I don't think they have managed to gain an advantage with their play. Now, if they also manage to move you into a dangerous position, then yes, they have played well and set you back some. At this point though, it's not really that different from any other push or teleport effect. It is more difficult to defend against, and has unlimited range, but the effect is the same. They have put you some place you don't want to be. This happens quite often, and your book should include some kind of response to it.
The end result? Your opponent has traded equal resources with you to gain a positional advantage. Normally a positional advantage does require that they pay some sort of premium, but there are many situations where it can be achieved very cheaply (1 Mana Force Pull comes to mind). I will not argue that getting this advantage without having to spend a premium is a very nice benefit, but it hardly seems broken to me.
Now, there are many other scenarios out there. Many of them actually end up benefiting the defending mage. However, I fail to come up with any scenario where I would consider the tactic to be incredibly in favor of the holy mage conducting it, unless the defender makes a serious error in judgement and misplays. Granted, this does require that the defender know about the possibility of the tactic. As sIKE said "fool me once, shame on you. fool me twice, shame on me."
So, we have a tactic that can end up benefiting the defender if you use it, and for which you can not expect a large return on investment unless the defender misplays. Does this detract from the game? It can force the defender to change tactics, but there are other cards that do that. It can win the game if they don't adapt to it, but there are other cards that do that as well. There's nothing all that special about this tactic, and it certainly does not break the game.
Zuberi, I suspect you are an Arcane Wonders plant
^_^ this is actually quite flattering. I think I shall direct you to
my very first post on these forums. There once was a time when I had some very noob questions myself. I did not appear over night, I just did not make any more posts for several months. You'll be surprised how much you can learn by observation.
Now, the first think I want to address is the fortress argument. There are a near infinite number of tactis, strategies, and scenarios we could discuss. They should all have countermeasures by the person running the fortress. I don't want to kill the fortress and make it an impossible play, I just don't want it to be a guaranteed win. My tactic of teleporting (or pushing) your mage out of their fortress should not succeed every time. However, I believe it should be a viable option.
I appreciate your thoughts about the war of attrition using arena wide effects, and siege warfare using ranged attacks. These should indeed be viable options to counter a fortress strategy as well, and would make the game more diverse. However, I don't think they should be the only options. They both involve long build ups and a slow drawn out game. That doesn't fit everyone's play style. What is the Aggro Mage supposed to do who wants to just rush in and start beating stuff up?
Rushing in is always going to put you at a disadvantage. You had to spend actions moving, while they spent actions building up and preparing. The obvious quick and dirty solution to negate this advantage is to separate them from their preparations.
It's really as simple as that. Some people using some strategies are going to want a QUICK solution that completely negates all of your build up. You should most certainly have ways to defend against this, but it should still be a viable tactic. Currently, I maintain it is viable. You seem to be trying to say it's not, but I have several games under my belt that prove otherwise, and the fact that the Fortress strategy does not dominate the meta seems to prove that it is. If it wasn't, then Aggro builds wouldn't exist. At all.
You can certainly do things to stop me from teleporting (or pushing) you out. I can certainly do things to try and get around that. The number of things and counter-things we can do is quite large. This diversity makes it impossible to guarantee an outcome in such a battle. Perhaps I will succeed and perhaps not. That is a good thing.
A separate issue is a teleport war. I'll actually agree with you that these are silly. However, unless you allow your opponent to keep a teleport wand, they are also finite. I can accept a bit of finite silliness in my game (though I can't speak for everyone, so perhaps this does ruin it for some). This does have the result of putting otherwise undue emphasis on a wand of teleport. I would VERY much like it if we could find a way to where I wasn't required to dissolve said wand. I think I am beginning to sound like a broken record by asking for a mechanic that prevents teleportation, but if I were able to put on a pair of boots or enchant my creatures so that they could not be teleported, then that would reduce the threat of said wand considerably (and the teleport mechanic in general).
I'm sorry if I give the impression that I care more about rules than game play. I suppose I don't really see much of a distinction between the two. The rules kind of dictate game play. Thus, the metrics of Fun, Intuitiveness, and Balance are in reality a measurement of the rules.
Balance is extremely important to me, actually. It's why 4th edition Dungeons and Dragons is my favorite edition (pretty sure I'm in the minority there) because it is the most balanced. Every strategy should be viable, and should have viable counters to it. Realistically, this isn't always the case, but it is the idea we should strive for.
Fun is also very important. Without fun nobody (myself included) would play. Different people have different ideas of what is fun though. I find chess fun (probably unsurprising to you) but I know many people who find it mind numbingly boring. When we discuss "fun" we may in fact be discussing very different concepts. For the game as a whole, I believe this means that ensuring it has a wide range of ways to play it maximizes it's fun quotient.
Intuitiveness is probably the hardest one for me to judge. I probably have an easier time picking things up than a lot of others (I'm the rules person in all the games my group plays, not just Mage Wars), so my own assessment of whether something makes sense or not is not necessarily a fair one. This is a metric I kind of have to test by seeing how easy it is to teach to others. I certainly agree it is important though.
Overall, I like this tripod of metrics you mentioned. I had never heard of it beforehand. At this point I believe everyone is aware of what the rule actually is. The discussion has been whether or not it is a good rule. For that judgement, comparing it to this tripod of metrics is a very good way to go about things. Thus, regarding Divine Intervention, I'm not going to say I support it because it is the official word. I'm going to say:
Balance = The defender does have ways to play against it. It is not a guaranteed win or even a guarantee of a significant advantage. Therefore, it is balanced.
Fun = I personally find it very fun. I would enjoy both playing it and playing against it. As the aggressor I like being able to force my opponent to respond to me and to potentially devastate them if they make a mistake. As the defender, I like the challenge of responding to their threat, and I actually like that I have to pull out my Plan B. It justifies including a Plan B, which I think every book should have.
Intuitive = I can see a problem here if you are teleporting the Mage into the same zone and saying it then counters the creature spell. I can think of ways to justify this thematically, but in general I agree it's an issue. However, if you teleport them to another zone, I believe it makes perfect sense.
Since I would rate intuitiveness below the other two metrics, I would be hesitant to change the rules to account for the few times this ruling is unintuitive. Changing the rules could upset the balance of the card, which is much more important to me, and I would not want to take that risk.
