On mana crystal effects and efficiency

[sIKE]

Casting an armour and not being attacked is a waste of mana and a quickcast, just the same as casting a crystal, and not using the extra mana it gives you each turn (or using it to cast an armour and not being attacked for three rounds).

I think if we teorize we should assume both players using their mana and actions equally efficiently, both the mana provided by the crystal, and the mana saved by not casting it.

I think you got my point there, however the armor is not a waste nor is the quickcast for the armor, if I get attacked in round 2 or round 5 the armor is will pay for itself (ROI) eventually. The real idea here for me, is that Actions for my mage are super precious. I could save mana to cast what I want but that cost is an action, however if I spend two of them up front to increase my channeling I will benefit immediately the next round and every round after and at some point get the mana back I spent on the crystals.

[ScaredyCat]

I think most respondents to DaFurryFury's argument are focused on the wrong thing.  It is not what you could do instead of playing the Mana Crystal but rather what you can do after playing it.  It is not whether the Mana Crystal is a better play than some other card, but rather the options it now affords you to respond to your opponents actions as well as the new options it opens for you in subsequent rounds.

I believe we all can agree that everyone has different styles, strategies, tactics, etc depending upon the mage your playing and the degree of experience you have against your opponent (i.e. their style, strategies, tactics, etc).  We all value one card over another as it works to achieve these ends.

My interpretation of "action potential" is what I can now do to respond to actions my opponent has taken or not taken while staying focused on my own strategy.  I know I cannot anticipate everything my opponent might do anymore than I can expect to do everything I would like to do when I want to do it.

The Mana Crystal gives me two key benefits:

• Long-term channeling growth
• Extra capability to respond to unforeseen actions on the part of my opponent

Am I sacrificing the play of some other spell so I can play the Mana Crystal?  Of course I am but that is a decision we make with every spell.  My opponent did so too with whatever they chose in the early game.  Maybe it was armor that they won't need until round 6 or maybe it was for a wand that I later dissolve before they ever use it; whatever it does not matter, we all make choices.

What I am wanting, is to be in a position as early as possible to respond to my opponent when necessary while keeping my eye on the end game when I can (hopefully) overwhelm them.   I want more mana and especially more than my opponent.  This may take several rounds but I know the game will last at least that long and I plan my strategy for it.

I assume we will both spend our starting mana quickly on things we want.  The subsequent rounds will be all about what we're willing to bank and our channeling.  This is where the "action potential" comes into play.  As the game unfolds we both will eventually find ourselves in a position where we need to respond to something our opponent has done.  If I can channel 11 vs. my opponents 10 then I am in a better position to not only respond but possibly doing so while still moving forward with my own strategy and tactics.  If I don't need to respond then I am in a better position to force my opponent to respond to my actions because I am spending more each individual round than they are.

Bottom line is that I see value in the 5-mana "sacrifice" that the Mana Crystal gives me on the rounds immediately after its cast.  It is an investment in the near and long-term future that I am after and worth whatever else I might play that needs that 5-mana. 

Is this true in all situations?  No . 
Could my opponent surprise me and attack aggressively at the start?  Sure, but I don't think 5-mana will put me at too much risk. 
Could I have banked the 5-mana and used that as my "action potential"?  Sure, but would I ... probably not (I'd likely spend it on something else).
Could my opponent play something that might prove, in hindsight, to be more valuable than my Mana Crystal?  Of course.  But will they?  We'll never know until we play.


BTW - while I often have this spell in my book I usually don't cast it until rounds 3 or 4.  I have more important spells to get out early (e.g. spawnpoints, large creature, or something else that my strategy requires be out early).  This also allows me to get a early read on my opponent's likely strategy and know whether it is "safe" to cast the Mana Crystal or if I need that 5-mana for some immediate response.  Baring an immediate need then I cast it and continue on with my own game tempo.

[ACG]

I think you got my point there, however the armor is not a waste nor is the quickcast for the armor, if I get attacked in round 2 or round 5 the armor is will pay for itself (ROI) eventually. The real idea here for me, is that Actions for my mage are super precious. I could save mana to cast what I want but that cost is an action, however if I spend two of them up front to increase my channeling I will benefit immediately the next round and every round after and at some point get the mana back I spent on the crystals.

I think most respondents to DaFurryFury's argument are focused on the wrong thing.  It is not what you could do instead of playing the Mana Crystal but rather what you can do after playing it.  It is not whether the Mana Crystal is a better play than some other card, but rather the options it now affords you to respond to your opponents actions as well as the new options it opens for you in subsequent rounds.

I still stand by my proposed test. But I don't think anybody is claiming that Mana Crystal does not give you more options in the long term. The disagreement is how long it takes to pay off. And I have yet to see a convincing argument that this time is less than 5 rounds (and some reason to think that it might be as long as 6 or 7 rounds, though that starts to require comparison of the value of actions vs mana). Put it a slightly different way (I think it has already been put in a similar way):

If you know for certain that the game will end next round, would you cast a mana crystal?
If you know for certain that the game will end in 2 rounds, would you cast a mana crystal?
If you know for certain that the game will end in 3 rounds, would you cast a mana crystal?
If you know for certain that the game will end in 4 rounds, would you cast a mana crystal?
If you know for certain that the game will end in 5 rounds, would you cast a mana crystal?

Maybe this way of framing the discussion question will help. If your answer to any of the above questions is yes, then I claim that I can come up with a better strategy (which involves casting something besides a mana crystal). If you believe that the answer to any of the above 5 questions is yes, please explain exactly why or how, even if it requires hypothesizing a particular scenario (no matter how unlikely that scenario is to occur in a real game). Give an example - proving your point doesn't even require general reasoning (i.e. you don't need to show that a mana crystal always gives an advantage), you just need to show a single instance where the mana crystal will give you an advantage within 5 rounds. Long term advantages of the mana crystal are irrelevant to this discussion. Just imagine a hypothetical scenario - any scenario; you could even posit a round limit enforced by a tournament - where the remaining time is limited to 5 rounds or fewer. What motivation do you have to cast a mana crystal rather than literally anything else?

[wtcannonjr]

Maximum spending scenario.

Turn 1 - both mages spend all mana leaving supply at 0. Mage A cast a mana crystal while mage B did not cast a mana channeling spell.

Turn 2 - Mage A now has 1 more mana each turn to cast spells.

[zorro]

"both mages spend all mana leaving supply at 0" means nothing to me, whatever the spend mana for would have an effect... If you can go with a concrete scenario (telling what mana crystal mage cast turn by turn), we could show that a non mana-crystal mage can do it the same or better, until turn 6.

Such as Mage A turn 1 cast mana crystal and bearskin, has 20 mana turn 2
Mage B cast just bearskin, and has 24 mana turn 2. (which is better than just 20)

We all agree than later than turn 6 having cast a crystal can provide more options. The discussion is about turns 1-6

[ScaredyCat]

We all agree than later than turn 6 having cast a crystal can provide more options. The discussion is about turns 1-6

Yes, rounds 1-6 but not solely.  The value is both.  Most argue that the benefit is solely turn 6+ and discount ANY value prior to turn 6.

Just imagine a hypothetical scenario - any scenario; you could even posit a round limit enforced by a tournament - where the remaining time is limited to 5 rounds or fewer. What motivation do you have to cast a mana crystal rather than literally anything else?

NONE - In this very specific example I see no benefit.  The value comes when played earlier when the game is still likely to take a while.  As stated above, the value this spell brings is primarily 6 rounds out but the debate is whether value can be realized sooner.  Personally, I would never cast it unless I expected the game to go at least another 10+ rounds.

I agree that concrete examples would definitely put this discussion to rest.  I have been watching this conversation since it began struggling to find a simple viable example.  There are none.  The secondary benefit is mostly reactionary to the game tempo and there are too many possible scenarios to keep it simple.

--------------------------------------
Maybe another approach to this discussion would be whether anyone saw value is a fictitious Mana Crystal -like  conjuration that cost 5 mana, produced no benefit for rounds 1-4 after casting, but then produced +5 mana on 5th round and then +1 channeling for all rounds after that. 

If this non-existent conjuration were compared to the actual Mana Crystal then which is better and why?

Maybe that perspective will help illustrate the near-term benefit.  I am NOT trying to convince anyone that the Mana Crystal is good or bad but rather trying to contribute as to why there is potential benefit in the first 5 rounds post casting.

[Wildhorn]

Maybe another approach to this discussion would be whether anyone saw value is a fictitious Mana Crystal -like  conjuration that cost 5 mana, produced no benefit for rounds 1-4 after casting, but then produced +5 mana on 5th round and then +1 channeling for all rounds after that. 

If this non-existent conjuration were compared to the actual Mana Crystal then which is better and why?

Maybe that perspective will help illustrate the near-term benefit.  I am NOT trying to convince anyone that the Mana Crystal is good or bad but rather trying to contribute as to why there is potential benefit in the first 5 rounds post casting.

First, the normal crystal is better than your made-up crystal because it gives you back some of you investment every turn instead to wait 5 turns.

Second, nobody argue if mana crystal is good or bad. We are arguing about if it give any benefit over not casting it for the first 5 rounds.

Third, imagine a scenario where you know the game end in 5 turns, maximum, guaranteed. Would you cast a Mana Crystal or this conjuration: Cost 5 mana. Once cast, gives you 5 mana and gives you an extra quick action and allow you to fetch a spell in your spellbook for this turn. Which one would you cast? The second one, right? That's exactly the same than not casting a mana crystal.

[ACG]

I agree that concrete examples would definitely put this discussion to rest.  I have been watching this conversation since it began struggling to find a simple viable example.  There are none.  The secondary benefit is mostly reactionary to the game tempo and there are too many possible scenarios to keep it simple.

If no scenario exists in which having a mana crystal is better than not having it within 5 turns of casting, how can the crystal be said to provide a benefit during those 5 turns? For an action to provide a benefit, it must be better than doing nothing (the status quo)

In your fictitious conjuration example, Mana Crystal is certainly better than that conjuration, but this does not mean that it is better than doing nothing in the first 5 turns after casting (A>B does not imply A>0). This is why we say that there is no benefit in the first 5 turns; it is not that the crystal does nothing, but rather that the costs of the crystal (-5 mana, -1 action) unequivocally outweigh the benefits (+1 mana per round) until the 6th round. Perhaps it might clear things up if we say that there is no net benefit to mana crystal in the first 5 rounds? Maybe this has been the point of confusion between those who think there is an early payoff and those who do not.

[Bluebaron]

I can only think of two benefits. Admittely they are not very strong, nenontheless a potential benefit.

1. The threat that the match will take longer than 5 rounds. This may influence the actions of my opponent.

2. If I want to deny a specific zone in the arena to my opponent as he can no longer play a zone exclusive conjuration in that zone. I am thinking primarily about outposts and maybe spawnpoints,  where my opponent prefers to put them in a specific zone.

[BoomFrog]

The discussion is about turns 1-6

Yes, rounds 1-6 but not solely. 

We are arguing about if it give any benefit over not casting it for the first 5 rounds.

At this point you three all have the same understanding about the benefit of mana crystal, but you are using different words and talking about different perspectives.  Scaredy cat is talking about GROSS-benefit, and Zorro and Wildhorn are talking about NET-benefit.

Gross benefit is anything you gain from the card.  Everyone agrees that you gain 1 mana on the turn two after you cast Mana Crystal and that is useful and better then nothing.

Net benefit is the gross benefit minus the cost of playing the card.  Everyone agrees that on turn 2 you have 4 less mana then you would have if you didn't cast mana crystal.  You do not have a positive net benefit until after turn 6.

[Borg]

I can't believe this argument is still not settled.

Maybe you have to look at it from another perspective.

The mana crystal is like an investment that gives you a small return round after round.

Initially the returns do not make up for the investment but the investment breaks even in round 6 and starts to generate a profit from T7 on.
So, the longer the game goes on, the bigger the profit.

Thus, casting a mana Crystal makes no sense if your game is going to take 6 or less rounds.

[Wildhorn]

We know that Borg. The thing is.some people believe the crystal give some hidden benefits prior the 6 turns.

[DaFurryFury]

I still would cast mana crystal if the game ended in turn 6 because of the reasons that I explained in the video. As long as it has at least paid for itself then it has given me the preferred bonus to me of higher action potential each turn. I Still beleive that because of this bonus that it pays itself off a couple turns before round 6.

[Wildhorn]

I still would cast mana crystal if the game ended in turn 6 because of the reasons that I explained in the video. As long as it has at least paid for itself then it has given me the preferred bonus to me of higher action potential each turn. I Still beleive that because of this bonus that it pays itself off a couple turns before round 6.

This is just plain dumb.

[ACG]

I still would cast mana crystal if the game ended in turn 6 because of the reasons that I explained in the video. As long as it has at least paid for itself then it has given me the preferred bonus to me of higher action potential each turn. I Still beleive that because of this bonus that it pays itself off a couple turns before round 6.

This is just plain dumb.

Hey now...let's be constructive...

But DaFurryFury, I do think a more detailed explanation is in order. Because as has already been established, whatever strategy you follow with mana crystal, I can at least mimic perfectly without it (and frequently improve upon it by playing key cards earlier). Since the game ends round six, what possible strategy could you have that uses up one of your precious 12 mage actions and spreads the availability of 5 mana out over 5 rounds?

I take it that you accept that playing a crystal in a game of 5 or fewer rounds has no net benefit,  (based on your choice of the 6 round example), right?