On mana crystal effects and efficiency

[DaFurryFury]

First of all, you could have come up with examples that the mage could have actually cast (a Forcemaster can't cast 3 spells in a round without a Spawnpoint or Familiar, and can't cast 2 creatures in a round), but that really doesn't matter.

In what turn did I have her cast 3 spells, and I'm aware on the multiple creature business. I didn't want to deal with the spell speed differences.

You are drawing an arbitrary distinction between stored mana, starting mana, and channeled mana that I still don't see any value in. The timing of when you get mana is important, but it's much more useful to keep track of mana available to invest in developing the board state than trying to separate these 3 pools of mana into distinct entities.

The three mana distinctions are not created by me, they are by design in the game. Channeled mana is a result of the separate element of channeling, starting mana is just something they added, and saved is any that isn't spent by the player. They all end with the result of giving you more mana to spend but they are all different sources. If you are going to determine what mana you have to invest, you have to see the sources of that mana to find the mana's inherent value.

You keep going back and forth on whether you include Mana Crystal as mana available to impact the board state. It is not available to develop the board, you've invested it in increasing your channeling already.

The reason I removed it in each situation is because several people stated that mana crystal shouldn't be included due to the fact that it doesn't change the board state. But, what I'm saying is that the current board state and potential change in board state have to be equated equally because mana crystal changes the rate at which you can change the total board state.

You talk about losing action potential in storing mana, but then talk about having an advantage due to not using your starting mana. This is fundamentally inconsistent. Either you are wasting action potential by not using that starting mana immediately, or you are not wasting action potential in storing mana. If you look at your example where your opponent has used their starting mana and you have not, by the end of turn 3 your opponent has a significant board advantage.

I don't understand why you think it's inconsistent. I separated the two concepts of stored mana and starting mana because one is a result of choice and the other is the result of what the game gave you. In the example where I didn't spend the starting mana, you are correct that the board advantage is to my opponent, but at the cost of spending all of the starting mana which will never replenish. In the case of the stored mana, the action potential is not lost but rather "moved" to the next turn.

In terms of investment theory, a Mana Crystal is a perpetuity. You can talk about the rate of return and your investment horizon, but that boils down to what I've already said.

I don't understand what you mean by this statement. Yes mana crystal "lasts forever" and gains value per turn, but I'm talking about (mostly) the first 6-7 turns and the benefit that I believe people ignore.

[sdougla2]

You don't have to see the source of the mana to see the mana's inherent value. That's the whole point. It matters WHEN you gain access to it, not where it comes from. You seem to think that the 10 starting mana is somehow more valuable. It is only more valuable in the sense that you gain access to it earlier, but it is no more valuable than the 10 mana a Wizard channels the first round. If you want to build up some mana after depleting your mana pool, just spend less. It's not like you can't save mana later to build up a reserve again.

You can do analysis of when you should try to save some mana, and when you should try to use all of your mana, but that's not what you're doing. At the level that you're looking at this, and for the purposes of evaluating Mana Crystal, that's not necessary. All you have to do is look at how much mana you have available to invest in developing the board state on a round by round basis. That's what Zorro demonstrated with the table of available mana.

Also, your equation is wrong, as Wildhorn stated. You can come up with whatever equation you want, but unless your equation corresponds to the situation you're using it to model, it will give you gibberish.

[wtcannonjr]

Nice vid DaFurryFury - unfortunately be ready for those that will get hung up on the cards you chose to play in your examples and miss the message. 

BTW - I liked wtcannonjr two-cents worth, you are both spot on!

It seems like we are talking about concepts covered in Investment Theory. i.e. Present and Future Value of Mana (rather than cash) and Option Theory to understand the value of a potential decision at a future time.

Thanks I appreciate it. Yeah I like Wtcannonjr's comment too. Any chance we can get a little built upon that Jr? =)

Work has me busy, but i will follow up in a few days. I am thinking along the lines of actions and mana are resources available to invest in changing the game state. Spells provide different capabilities that help a player achieve a desired outcome (kill the mage). Some spells provide direct benefits, such as attack dice and additional actions while other spells provide indirect benefits, such as increased channeling.

More to follow when i have time...

Perhaps others here can connect some of these dots as well. It sounds like we are all dancing around with related ideas but focusing on different aspects of the overall game play.

[ACG]

First of all, your video is very clean and well put together, so kudos for that. That being said, I think you kind of shoot yourself in the foot with the examples you give. The forcemaster seems to have a better position in the video, since she has significantly more creatures, especially early on (partially due to summoning 2 per turn), even if they are slightly weaker.

Despite your explanation of mana potential, I am still very unclear on how it is measured. Sometimes, it seems to simply be the mana a mage can spend on their turn but other times - maybe I just can't wrap my mind around it. My failure to understand your metric prevents me from understanding your argument, so you would do well to explain your point in other terms.

I strongly encourage you to consider my suggestion for how to make your point more clear: demonstrate a clear example of a strategy with a payoff in the first 5 turns (where the mana crystal itself is not included in that payoff) that absolutely requires mana crystal (or an equivalent spell like mana flower) to work. To give you an example, here is a strategy that proves that the Lair has a unique payoff at most 2 turns after it is cast:

Beastmaster:
Turn 1 (19) : Lair + Ring of Beasts + <Move Mage> (2)
Turn 2 (11+2) : Fox + Fox + <Move mage> + Harmonize Lair (0)
Turn 3 (9+3) : Fox + Fox + <Double Move Mage> (3)

Now your mage has 4 foxes and a ring of beasts on turn 3 and has moved 4 zones. This is impossible to achieve with any other strategy - if you do not cast the lair, you can only summon 1 fox per turn if you are moving. This means that Lair has a unique advantage over the status quo 2 turns after it is cast, since it allows you to achieve a combination of resources (excluding the lair itself) that are impossible without it. The closest you could get is Teleporting twice:

Turn 1 (19) : Fox + Teleport twice ( 8 )
Turn 2 (17) : Fox + Teleport twice (6)
Turn 3 (15) : Fox + Fox (5)

You have 2 more mana, but you don't have the ring of beasts (or harmonize, though that is attached to the lair so it is difficult to account for it precisely) (also, you just used up 8 spellpoints worth of teleports, which seems a little wasteful...), so the lair strategy still has a unique advantage over this. (Note that this is not claiming that the lair has paid for itself, merely that you can do something with the lair by turn 3 that you cannot do by turn 3 without it) In other words, I am not asking you to show that the strategy you demonstrate with the mana crystal is superior to similar strategies, just that it provides a combination of resources (excluding the crystal from the list of resources, of course) by turn X that is impossible to achieve any other way. I think this is a fair test of whether the mana crystal really does have any advantage over the status quo before turn 6, and (more importantly) one that can be easily understood by everybody.

[DaFurryFury]

You don't have to see the source of the mana to see the mana's inherent value. That's the whole point. It matters WHEN you gain access to it, not where it comes from. You seem to think that the 10 starting mana is somehow more valuable. It is only more valuable in the sense that you gain access to it earlier, but it is no more valuable than the 10 mana a Wizard channels the first round.

The 10 starting mana IS more valuable because it doesn't replenish. It's finite and cannot be gained again thus cannot be spent willy nilly. You are correct that it does no more for you than the 10 channeled mana, but it is different in nature because it doesn't replenish. That's why it's not included into my equation. Remember that I'm valuating mana crystal based off of the channeling bonus you receive and all benefits therein. This being the case I believe both when and where the mana in question comes from is important. You say it's not more valuable but don't you wait to cast all of it in case you need some of it later for a bigger later turn? If I use the starting 10 mana early it's usually because I'm casting something like mana crystal, beast ring, force orb, and the like. All of which increase the action potential of cards.

If you want to build up some mana after depleting your mana pool, just spend less. It's not like you can't save mana later to build up a reserve again.

Remember that to do this you must sacrifice action potential on a previous turn. My argument was that I have the ability to summon the same or similar card while using no or less sacrificed potential.

You can do analysis of when you should try to save some mana, and when you should try to use all of your mana, but that's not what you're doing. At the level that you're looking at this, and for the purposes of evaluating Mana Crystal, that's not necessary. All you have to do is look at how much mana you have available to invest in developing the board state on a round by round basis. That's what Zorro demonstrated with the table of available mana.

I agree, and that's what my equation ultimately expresses. (value of gained mana*number of turns in play-cost of card)+(value of gained action potential*number of turns in play)

Also, your equation is wrong, as Wildhorn stated. You can come up with whatever equation you want, but unless your equation corresponds to the situation you're using it to model, it will give you gibberish.

Hopefully I've convinced you that it does apply when I stated it above. (value of gained mana*number of turns in play-cost of card)+(value of gained action potential*number of turns in play) This translates to (1X-5)+(1X) though, since the "1s" don't change anything you can boil it down further to (X-5)+(X). In the second clause I leave the "1" to emphasize that I believe that the "value" of the increased action potential is equal to that of the gained mana.

[DaFurryFury]

First of all, your video is very clean and well put together, so kudos for that. That being said, I think you kind of shoot yourself in the foot with the examples you give. The forcemaster seems to have a better position in the video, since she has significantly more creatures, especially early on (partially due to summoning 2 per turn), even if they are slightly weaker.

The idea is that seems like the forcemaster has an advantage due to the number of spells it casts, but if we assume that two cost 5 creatures are the same as one cost 10 creature, then the wizard has an advantage because he was able to cast cost 11 creatures that the forcemaster was unable to.

Despite your explanation of mana potential, I am still very unclear on how it is measured. Sometimes, it seems to simply be the mana a mage can spend on their turn but other times - maybe I just can't wrap my mind around it. My failure to understand your metric prevents me from understanding your argument, so you would do well to explain your point in other terms.

Let me try to explain action potential this way; all cards have a certain amount of action potential, and this is usually equal to that of their mana cost. Mages are included in that they have action potential but they are unique in that they gain a certain amount of action potential back due to their channeling. When a creature is cast, the action potential is not lost, it is simply moved from the mage to the creature and translated to it's health, attack, abilities, etc.... So at any one point in the examples Ive shown, the mana crystal mage is able to have more total action potential after it is cast.

I strongly encourage you to consider my suggestion for how to make your point more clear: demonstrate a clear example of a strategy with a payoff in the first 5 turns (where the mana crystal itself is not included in that payoff) that absolutely requires mana crystal (or an equivalent spell like mana flower) to work. To give you an example, here is a strategy that proves that the Lair has a unique payoff at most 2 turns after it is cast:

Beastmaster:
Turn 1 (19) : Lair + Ring of Beasts + <Move Mage> (2)
Turn 2 (11+2) : Fox + Fox + <Move mage> + Harmonize Lair (0)
Turn 3 (9+3) : Fox + Fox + <Double Move Mage> (3)

Now your mage has 4 foxes and a ring of beasts on turn 3 and has moved 4 zones. This is impossible to achieve with any other strategy - if you do not cast the lair, you can only summon 1 fox per turn if you are moving. This means that Lair has a unique advantage over the status quo 2 turns after it is cast, since it allows you to achieve a combination of resources (excluding the lair itself) that are impossible without it. The closest you could get is Teleporting twice:

Turn 1 (19) : Fox + Teleport twice ( 8 )
Turn 2 (17) : Fox + Teleport twice (6)
Turn 3 (15) : Fox + Fox (5)

You have 2 more mana, but you don't have the ring of beasts (or harmonize, though that is attached to the lair so it is difficult to account for it precisely) (also, you just used up 8 spellpoints worth of teleports, which seems a little wasteful...), so the lair strategy still has a unique advantage over this. (Note that this is not claiming that the lair has paid for itself, merely that you can do something with the lair by turn 3 that you cannot do by turn 3 without it) In other words, I am not asking you to show that the strategy you demonstrate with the mana crystal is superior to similar strategies, just that it provides a combination of resources (excluding the crystal from the list of resources, of course) by turn X that is impossible to achieve any other way. I think this is a fair test of whether the mana crystal really does have any advantage over the status quo before turn 6, and (more importantly) one that can be easily understood by everybody.

I feel like the examples I've shown are sufficient. In the previous examples the benefit within turn 6 is that I cast larger cards than the opponent. I feel like this is explained quite thoroughly in the video. I gave you an example that only uses the benefit of mana crystal and tried to show most situations in that it is still helpful. Your example with the lair uses multiple cards, and multiple sources of channeling. Harmonize is almost identical to mana crystal except that it can target something other than the mage. So your example did not exemplify the usefulness of lair but rather the usefulness of lair+harmonize (or even mana crystal with a similar effect)+ring of beasts. My example judges mana crystal on it's own terms. I could further the effects of mana crystal by attaching a ring or gate of voltari or anything else that in creases channeling but then I am not judging the value of a single mana crystal. So anyway, other than the examples I've already given, I'm not sure how else I can physically show the benefit and that is a failing of myself so I'm sorry I can't help you more. It's just that if I'm to make an example that isn't nearly identical to the previous ones I would just be reaching and I'm afraid they wouldn't make much sense. Maybe someone else has an idea who understands what I'm talking about?

[ACG]

I gave you an example that only uses the benefit of mana crystal and tried to show most situations in that it is still helpful. Your example with the lair uses multiple cards, and multiple sources of channeling. Harmonize is almost identical to mana crystal except that it can target something other than the mage. So your example did not exemplify the usefulness of lair but rather the usefulness of lair+harmonize (or even mana crystal with a similar effect)+ring of beasts. My example judges mana crystal on it's own terms. I could further the effects of mana crystal by attaching a ring or gate of voltari or anything else that in creases channeling but then I am not judging the value of a single mana crystal

My point with the Lair (of, if you prefer, with Lair + Harmonize) is that you can achieve something with that strategy that is impossible without it, namely having 4 foxes, 1 ring of beasts, and moving 4 zones by round 3. There is no other card (or combination; whether you consider the lair alone or with harmonize is irrelevant) that will allow you to do that, so we can conclude that the lair has a unique payoff by the 3rd round of play.

None of your examples with mana crystal demonstrate a unique payoff before the 6th round because it is always possible to achieve at least the same game state (ignoring the physical crystal itself) without using a mana crystal. To look at your example:

With crystal:
Turn 1 (10): Crystal + Caltrops + Move Once (0)
Turn 2 (11) : Dwarf (0)
Turn 3 (11) : Dwarf (0)

Without crystal:
Turn 1 (10): Mangler caltrops + Move twice (5)
Turn 2 (15): Dwarf + Enchanter's Ring (2)
Turn 3 (12): Dwarf + Arbitrary Enchantment (0)

At turn 3, the crystal user is 1 move, 1 enchanter's ring, and 1 enchantment behind the non-crystal user, and both have the same stored mana. There is no unique benefit to having the crystal by turn 3.

If we look at whether there is a benefit by turn 4:

Crystal
Turn 1 (10): Crystal + Caltrops + Move Once (0)
Turn 2 (11) : Dwarf (0)
Turn 3 (11) : Dwarf (0)
Turn 4 (11) : Dwarf (0)

Non-Crystal
Turn 1 (10): Mangler caltrops + Move twice (5)
Turn 2 (15): Dwarf (4)
Turn 3 (14): Dwarf (3)
Turn 4 (13): Dwarf + Enchanter's ring (0)

Both players have the same number of dwarves and mana, but the non-crystal player has 1 move and 1 enchanter's ring over the crystal player. And if we consider 5 turns:

Crystal
Turn 1 (10): Crystal + Caltrops + Move Once (0)
Turn 2 (11) : Dwarf (0)
Turn 3 (11) : Dwarf (0)
Turn 4 (11) : Dwarf (0)
Turn 5 (11) : Dwarf (0)

Non-Crystal
Turn 1 (10): Mangler caltrops + Move twice (5)
Turn 2 (15): Dwarf (4)
Turn 3 (14): Dwarf (3)
Turn 4 (13): Dwarf (2)
Turn 5 (12): Dwarf (1)

Now they have the same number of dwarves, but the non-crystal player has 1 move and 1 mana over the crystal player. By Turn 6, of course, the crystal has paid for itself, but the non-crystal player still has the advantage of 1 move.

My point is this: If, without a crystal, I can achieve everything by turn X that can be achieved with a crystal, then it is incorrect to say that the crystal provides a benefit by turn X. The examples you have given so far fail this test because in each case it is possible to achieve the same thing (and more) without needing a mana crystal. If you can show me an example where you can reach a game state that is impossible without a crystal, then I will be convinced; otherwise, I still am certain that the crystal has no net benefit until 5 turns after it is cast.

[DaFurryFury]

I gave you an example that only uses the benefit of mana crystal and tried to show most situations in that it is still helpful. Your example with the lair uses multiple cards, and multiple sources of channeling. Harmonize is almost identical to mana crystal except that it can target something other than the mage. So your example did not exemplify the usefulness of lair but rather the usefulness of lair+harmonize (or even mana crystal with a similar effect)+ring of beasts. My example judges mana crystal on it's own terms. I could further the effects of mana crystal by attaching a ring or gate of voltari or anything else that in creases channeling but then I am not judging the value of a single mana crystal

My point is this: If, without a crystal, I can achieve everything by turn X that can be achieved with a crystal, then it is incorrect to say that the crystal provides a benefit by turn X. The examples you have given so far fail this test because in each case it is possible to achieve the same thing (and more) without needing a mana crystal. If you can show me an example where you can reach a game state that is impossible without a crystal, then I will be convinced; otherwise, I still am certain that the crystal has no net benefit until 5 turns after it is cast.

You are still disregarding the fact that in the last example when you have both mages cast 4 dwarves that the mage without mana crystal used "saved mana" to summon all her dwarves where the Mage with mana crytal didn't. You have proven my point further because in that case the other mage did indeed keep pace with the mana crystal mage but had to sacrifice action potential on the first turn to do so.
As far as the value of moves are concerned, those are much trickier in converting it to value because movement is rather arbitrary in the game as a whole since the game is more about the pacing mana usage anyway. I don't concider movement as extremely relevant as moving toward the enemy might mean you can attack him but will also mean he can attack you. It's an even win-loss situation in my perception. But I don't want to get too off track here as we are talking about casting and speed of casting. I'm not trying to devalue your point of the moving because you are correct that moving does have value, but it's a separate entity that has its pros and cons as well that cannot be included into my current equation.

[Wildhorn]

You make no sense with your "action potential".

[ACG]

You are still disregarding the fact that in the last example when you have both mages cast 4 dwarves that the mage without mana crystal used "saved mana" to summon all her dwarves where the Mage with mana crytal didn't. You have proven my point further because in that case the other mage did indeed keep pace with the mana crystal mage but had to sacrifice action potential on the first turn to do so.
As far as the value of moves are concerned, those are much trickier in converting it to value because movement is rather arbitrary in the game as a whole since the game is more about the pacing mana usage anyway. I don't concider movement as extremely relevant as moving toward the enemy might mean you can attack him but will also mean he can attack you. It's an even win-loss situation in my perception. But I don't want to get too off track here as we are talking about casting and speed of casting. I'm not trying to devalue your point of the moving because you are correct that moving does have value, but it's a separate entity that has its pros and cons as well that cannot be included into my current equation.

In the example I gave, what I showed was that the mage without the mana crystal can do everything the mage with the mana crystal can do and more. Both mages are casting the same cards on the same turn - turn 1, they both get caltrops. Turn 2, they both get a dwarf. Turn 3, they both get a dwarf. They are taking all of the exact same actions at the same time except that the non-crystal user is able to do more. No matter how you are defining action potential, if your opponent is able to play all the same cards on the same turns as you plus extra cards that you are not playing and still ends up with at least as much mana as you, they are unambiguously ahead of you - there is no aspect of the game in which you are ahead of them. It doesn't matter how you value moves, or anything else - on every turn the non-crystal player has everything the crystal player has, and more.

Look:

Unique resources
Resources common to both sides

With crystal:
Turn 1 (10): Crystal + Caltrops + Move Once (0)
Turn 2 (11) : Dwarf (0)
Turn 3 (11) : Dwarf (0)

Without crystal:
Turn 1 (10): Mangler caltrops + Move twice (5)
Turn 2 (15): Dwarf + Enchanter's Ring (2)
Turn 3 (12): Dwarf + Arbitrary Enchantment (0)

With the exception of the crystal (which has no benefit besides the channeling, and whose payoff we are evaluating), the crystal mage has literally nothing that the non-crystal mage does not have, at any point. If you want to talk about wasting action potential, notice that the crystal mage wastes 2 quickcasts that the non-crystal mage makes use of (though I still do not think this metric is well defined enough to make an analysis based on that).

When evaluating a game state, how you got there isn't relevant. If the Lord of Fire is swinging his scythe in my face, I don't care if I roll 5 damage or fifteen, if both results kill him. Similarly, it doesn't matter where mana or any other resource comes from; all that matters in evaluating the state of the game on a given turn is the sum total of the resources that each side has. Mana is mana, whether it was channeled this turn or last turn.

[DaFurryFury]

Ah! I think I see what you mean with this example now. This example you just stated has both mages not using the original 10 mana but just channeled and saved mana. In this case for the situation to be equal you can't necessarily assume that the mana crystal mage spends all his mana on turn one. He might spend it like this:

With crystal:
Turn 1 (10): Crystal + Move Twice (5)
Turn 2 (16) : Dwarf (0) + enchanters ring (3)
Turn 3 (14) : Dwarf (0) + Arbitrary enchantment (2)

Without crystal:
Turn 1 (10): Mangler caltrops + Move twice (5)
Turn 2 (15): Dwarf + Enchanter's Ring (2)
Turn 3 (12): Dwarf + Arbitrary Enchantment (0)

In this case the mage with crystal may have 1 less card in play but he has a 2 mana advantage at the end of turn 3 because he didn't have to spend as much saved mana. He also could have played cards of higher value to further express the benefit. I had him play the same cards to be as consistent as possible, but I think the point is here is that instead of caltrops he plays mana crystal for the purpose of the 2 mana benefit. Though, caltrops has a different benefit, I think at this point the mages are relatively equal.

The same relationship can be described with mages of differing channeling rather than playing mana crystal.
The only difference is that the mage didn't have to spend anything on it and gains ALL of mana crystal's benefits immediately.

so basically, going back to your example:

With crystal:
Turn 1 (10): Crystal + Caltrops + Move Once (0)
Turn 2 (11) : Dwarf (0)
Turn 3 (11) : Dwarf (0)

Without crystal:
Turn 1 (10): Mangler caltrops + Move twice (5)
Turn 2 (15): Dwarf + Enchanter's Ring (2)
Turn 3 (12): Dwarf + Arbitrary Enchantment (0)

Mage 1 "sacrifices" his second move to get the mana crystal benefit, but mage 2 also sacrifices his 5 mana this turn to have if immediately next turn to get his enchanters ring benefit. So my model still works in respect to sacrifice vs gain. They are distinct in option and separate entities or abilities. Whether or not you believe one is better than the other is a personal distinction but the benefit is still there. Mage 1 didn't have to save mana on previous turns to get the larger cards he wanted, but mage 2 had to sacrifice 5 on his first turn, but the effect is more immediate than mana crystal. Mana crystal just happens to have a slower return, but still present in the first 6 turns. Does that make some sense? It's important to note here in your example, that mage 1 has spent 32 mana in total where mage 2 has spent 30. Also, in my example, both have spent 30 and mage 1 has a 2 mana advantage. I think that 2 mana, even though it hasn't made up for itself yet, is important because it's what allowed you to play larger cards faster than mage 2.

[sdougla2]

You still seem to be missing the point. Your equation double counts the mana generated by the Mana Crystal because this "action potential" you value so highly is just the mana generated by the Mana Crystal. If you double count the resources generated by the Mana Crystal, of course it will look like it returns your investment faster.

You have not given a clear definition of action potential.

In addition, in the example you just gave, the player with the Crystal is 2 mana ahead and a Mangler Caltrops Behind. Overall that means the Crystal player is still behind. He has less total mana available to invest in developing the board.

Of course your starting mana replenishes. That's what channeling IS! It's not like it's a different resource that you can never get back. This isn't Ginkopolis where you start with 2 tokens that let you get a new hand that can never be replaced.

Whenever you talk about saving starting mana or stored mana in the context of a Mana Crystal player, you put it in a positive light. Whenever you talk about a mage without a Crystal storing mana, you talk about it in a negative context. This is what is so inconsistent about your position.

As others have said, you need to compare casting a Mana Crystal to casting nothing, not to casting a particular spell. Comparing it to Mangler Caltrops in particular seems a little odd, as it's such a situational card.

[ACG]

Counterexample:

With crystal:
Turn 1 (10): Crystal + Move Twice (5)
Turn 2 (16) : Dwarf (0) + enchanters ring (3)
Turn 3 (14) : Dwarf (0) + Arbitrary enchantment (2)

Without crystal:
Turn 1 (10): Enchanter's Ring + Move twice (8)
Turn 2 (18): Dwarf + Arbitrary Enchantment (6)
Turn 3 (16): Dwarf + Arbitrary Enchantment (4)

Try again.

[jacksmack]

You make no sense with your "action potential".

I think 'action potential' is nice. I'm kind of thinking in the same way, though not so much in 'per round'.

What am I able to do by round x?
Especially when the opponent and I engage in combat (so to speak) then I wish to have maxed out my potential or close to.
I can manipulate this with different openings and adjusting to my opponent's opening in order to foresee when this will happen.


When you clash with the enemy:

The advantage of having maxed out on your 'potential':
Better cards on the board = more damage done and/or less damage taken
To sum it up: perform better right here and now.

The advantage of nearly having maxed out 'potential'
perform decent while being still being agile with option to adapt to your opponent with a little extra unspent mana.

The advantage of having tons of 'potential' left:
None - lose the game due to lack of board control.


I still strongly disagree with FuryFurrys view on the value of starting mana and even more on the 'turn by turn' view on action potential.

IMO: The only time starting mana truly changes value is when mages with different channeling plays against each other.

[DaFurryFury]

You still seem to be missing the point. Your equation double counts the mana generated by the Mana Crystal because this "action potential" you value so highly is just the mana generated by the Mana Crystal. If you double count the resources generated by the Mana Crystal, of course it will look like it returns your investment faster.

See this is why I mentioned earlier that if you don't value the action potential as highly as the mana count, you can reduce it's value within the equation to .5 or even .25. In both cases the result is that it still pays off earlier than most people say. I think it is wrong, though, to say it has no value because on a turn where I have 11 mana and the opponent has 10, there is an advantage. Small though it may be.

You have not given a clear definition of action potential.

I have given several versions of an action potential definition. I can only assume you have not read the posts carefully enough or do not understand all of the versions I have given. If the later is true please help me to help you.

In addition, in the example you just gave, the player with the Crystal is 2 mana ahead and a Mangler Caltrops Behind. Overall that means the Crystal player is still behind. He has less total mana available to invest in developing the board.

This is only true if you aren't including the value spent on mana crystal. Since I feel it is, basically, unfair to say some cards are worth their mana and others aren't I have to include or exclude both values. I only did both in the video by popular demand, even though I don't agree with it.

Of course your starting mana replenishes. That's what channeling IS! It's not like it's a different resource that you can never get back. This isn't Ginkopolis where you start with 2 tokens that let you get a new hand that can never be replaced.

Whenever you talk about saving starting mana or stored mana in the context of a Mana Crystal player, you put it in a positive light. Whenever you talk about a mage without a Crystal storing mana, you talk about it in a negative context. This is what is so inconsistent about your position.

I talk about them in positive light because, by observation, I see no negatives when I don't use the starting or stored mana. The opponent using starting or stored mana does have negative effects. In a real game I would be using a combination of all three but I need to exaggerate the examples to help emphasize my points.

As others have said, you need to compare casting a Mana Crystal to casting nothing, not to casting a particular spell. Comparing it to Mangler Caltrops in particular seems a little odd, as it's such a situational card.

The reason I have the opponent cast a card is because I have to assume he is playing the game and not just sitting there. In the first example of the video I have her cast cards to simulate using channeled mana and not starting or saved mana. This is to show all the differences that I go into at the end half of the video. I agree, mangler caltrops is kinda weird but it also emphasizes my point that the cards cast don't really matter so long as mana is being spent.

ACG

Counterexample:

With crystal:
Turn 1 (10): Crystal + Move Twice (5)
Turn 2 (16) : Dwarf (0) + enchanters ring (3)
Turn 3 (14) : Dwarf (0) + Arbitrary enchantment (2)

Without crystal:
Turn 1 (10): Enchanter's Ring + Move twice (
Turn 2 (18): Dwarf + Arbitrary Enchantment (6)
Turn 3 (16): Dwarf + Arbitrary Enchantment (4)

Try again.

I feel like we are spinning in circles and just coming up with examples that each mage is using less and less mana to show an advantage. So this isn't going to go anywhere because it's getting too hung up on the actual cards being cast. The point is that if a card requires payment in mana equal to that of its action potential then mana crystal, I believe, is a good choice due to it's enhanced ability to summon the larger cards faster.



jacksmack

When you clash with the enemy:

The advantage of having maxed out on your 'potential':
Better cards on the board = more damage done and/or less damage taken
To sum it up: perform better right here and now.

The advantage of nearly having maxed out 'potential'
perform decent while being still being agile with option to adapt to your opponent with a little extra unspent mana.

The advantage of having tons of 'potential' left:
None - lose the game due to lack of board control.

This is why, in the video, I had both mages play almost all of the mana they had available or explained how the mages could spend it and the mana crystal mage comes out on top. I do agree that unspent potential is still simply potential and not yet effecting the game. Though, presumably, if you are saving mana to the point where you literally can't spend it by casting the two most expensive cards in the game, then you are only hurting yourself because it then become "potential" that can't be used.