Using multiple spells vs one of several different spells

[DaFurryFury]

I've seen a lot of official and custom spellbooks that seem like they use a lot of different spells but only have 1 of them and 2 of specific others like dispel. This seems odd to me because when I make a book I tend to use several of the same spell so that I can use it on several creatures or extend its effects. I'll have 4 of 2-3 different spells when other seem to use only one of each spell. I'm just curious what your thoughts are on this. Pros Cons? What do you do more often? Am I building mine weird?

[Wildhorn]

Having multiple spells allow you to deal with multiple threats. You never know what your opponent will throw at you. You need to be ready.

Having 3-4x the same spell just make you predictable, also for example, having 4x Agony seems awesome... But if opponent only cast 1 creature... You wasted spellbook points.

[sIKE]

This is where the art and strategy of book building come in to play. The amounts included in each book is typically one of those hard choices made during construction. I like to add in multiple copies of Dispel and Dissolve but typically I also want to include xyz spell, say Rust, for the same cost I can swap out a Dissolve for a Rust now I am carrying 1 fewer Dissolves and I do this a couple of times for the spell sets and then I land at a final number sometimes I have 3-4 Dissolves/Dispels others I have 1-2...

[DaFurryFury]

But when considering what an opponent might throw at you, wouldn't you want at least a couple heals (just as an example) because you might either want to keep a big creature alive or use it on several. I do know cards like mage wand and enchantment transference has widened my spell range, but those are cards specifically made to extend a spells effect.

[Wildhorn]

But when considering what an opponent might throw at you, wouldn't you want at least a couple heals (just as an example) because you might either want to keep a big creature alive or use it on several. I do know cards like mage wand and enchantment transference has widened my spell range, but those are cards specifically made to extend a spells effect.

If you heal a creature more than once, your opponent might have forgot what the goal of the game is... Killing your mage.

And if i keep seeing you heal your creature, i will simply realise it is a waste of time/ressource to attack your creatures. So i will stop to damage them, making your heals useless.

[DaveW]

But when considering what an opponent might throw at you, wouldn't you want at least a couple heals (just as an example) because you might either want to keep a big creature alive or use it on several.

It really depends on how you intend to play. With a very aggressive book, you may consider not including any Healing spells. The thought there is that you probably would rather use the mana and actions that they cost to keep the pressure on and to kill the opponent's Mage instead. This is especially true if using limited Creature support.

Where there are reasons for multiple copies of a spell, I use multiple copies. Where I am not sure that I'm going to get out a fifth or sixth Falcon, use all four Hurl Boulders, etc., those are the first things that go when I free-up space in the book for other spells that might be handy.

[DaFurryFury]

Maybe Heal was a bad example. Its a little too strategy specific. How bout mana crystal/flower. I usually bring 2 often times 3. I don't always summon all three but I like to have a 3rd in cases that I can summon 3 or my opponent destroys 1 and I have an extra to summon.

Waste of points? or is the 2 SP worth it to support high channel?

[zorro]

I think it depends on your mage and the general strategy you try to follow. Sometimes the schools your mage are trained offer alternatives for the same spell points (as mixing explode dissolve in a warlock to have different alternatives), sometimes you preffer to have little variation in effects. Other times you can have some cheap spells (spell point and/or mana wise) wich are generally usefull and you include more copies (acid balls).

I generally preffer to have variety of spells, so tend to try not have much multiple copies. But in my druid book i have 4 thornslasher and 4 raptor vines, but no more than two any other spell. My necromancer brings all 6 skeletan minions (and no more than two any other spell). The warlock has 3 flameblast, and no mre than 2 any other spell...

[Wildhorn]

Maybe Heal was a bad example. Its a little too strategy specific. How bout mana crystal/flower. I usually bring 2 often times 3. I don't always summon all three but I like to have a 3rd in cases that I can summon 3 or my opponent destroys 1 and I have an extra to summon.

Waste of points? or is the 2 SP worth it to support high channel?

It is a waste if you cast it past early game (unless your games last an anormal amount of rounds).

A manaflower/crystal will only pay back 6 turns after you casted it. If you cast it on 5th-6th turn, i doubt having 1 extra mana on 11th-12th turn (80% of my games are already over by that time) will help you as much as the 5 mana you spent on that 5th-6th turn.

[DaFurryFury]

I think my original question was answered for the most part so I don't mind derailing the discussion a little on the mana crystal thing.

It's clearly a common fallacy on these forums that the returns for a mana crystal is only directly related to the mana it gives you back. That is true only in the sense of counting mana. To properly evaluate the "value" of mana crystal you must look at it's "real" returns. I define "real" as the return a spell gives you after it pays itself off plus it's immediate effects. This manifests itself in many ways but mana crystal is pretty simple in that it just gives you mana back.
So to boil it down, the total converted value of mana crystal is (Length of Game - 5 [Mana Cost] + [Increased amount of Channeling * Length of Game]. If you're a math nut you will like this expression; (X-5)+(1*X) So if you put that expression into a graphing calc (https://www.desmos.com/calculator) you can see the "x intercept" which shows approximately how many turns it would take for it to pay itself off. (2.5) Which is less than 3 turns if you calculate it this way.
Now I'm going to try to answer a question which I think several of you will have. "Why/Where are you getting the second half of the equation which adds an originally un-thought of positive?" Well, it represents the value of increased channeling that you gain because it's not just a card to give you more mana. It's a card to allow you to summon 1 mana worth of a larger spell during that turn. Plus it's effects stack when you play a small turn to save because you gain more with the larger channeling.

Side-note: If you put the equation into the graphing calc I linked you to, you will see the "y-intercept" which represents the amount you spend on the spell. Yay Mathmatics and Game Theory!

Now I understand this is a really big rant that several of you maybe didn't read, but people keep telling me the effectiveness of cards based off of it's effect on the surface without taking into account a card's value over time.

I might post more about this in a separate thread but I feel like I would be put on a spit over a fire for pretty much telling an entire community that they are wrong about anything no matter how small. Haha

[V10lentray]

I think my original question was answered for the most part so I don't mind derailing the discussion a little on the mana crystal thing.

The funny thing is, I use this as a way to talk my self out of using the [mwcard=MW1Q22]Moonglow Amulet[/mwcard] in almost everycase. But I have less reservation using the [mwcard=DNQ10]Meditation Amulet[/mwcard] in certain books. I say to my self, it will take 6 turns to get back that 6 mana, so if cast on turn 1, on turn 7 I finally break even, so it's a waste. but I have no hesitation about on turn 1, 2 and some times 3 dropping a Mana Flower/Crystal where the same logic says I won't break even until turn 6/7 and maybe 8.

Games are silly this way. But you have put a new perspective on things and I will be likely to consider the [mwcard=MW1Q22]Moonglow Amulet[/mwcard] from now on.

[jacksmack]

i'm amazed....

[sIKE]

I have made the same argument in the past and was laughed at. I didn't have the math to back up my thoughts which I knew to be true. Thanks a lot for the information you have provided here....

[Wildhorn]

The formula is wrong because you add twice X, which gives 2 mana per turn while crystal only gives one.

The right formula is ((X*1)-5)


If you want an example:

Give 5$ to a djinn and 1$ will appear every day in your pocket. That's how mana crystal work.

But your formula is: Give 5$ to a djinn, 1$ appear in your pocket every day... But the djinn also give you 1$ per day.

[DaFurryFury]

My equation does not calculate how much mana it gives you. It's a more abstract representation of the overall value. Both mana gain and action potential of the increased channeling. Since it increases channeling and does not give you just flat mana, it's value is exponential based on the amount of turns taken and the increase of mana per turn instead of mana per game. If you calculate just mana per game yes you are correct but that's not where the true value of mana crystal lies.