At risk of feeding the troll...
Mage Wars is more tactical (and arguably more strategic) than most of the similar games you list, with harder decisions that have bigger consequences (vs "draw a card and hope it helps me").
Which is a harder decision with bigger consequences: Having to build magic vs. keeping assets in your hand; Or, picking whichever spells you want, turn after turn?
The latter.
In the former, I might have a choice between one good play, one mediocre play, and waiting until next turn where I might have a better opportunity (or might just draw an unnecessary land card). In the latter, I have every option available to me simultaneously and have to choose between aggression, restraint, primary plan, back-up plan, etc.
The design flaws you list are the main reasons I got out of MtG - specifically its flawed resource system (e.g. MtG's resource system depends on "luck of the draw", where you routinely get mana flooded or mana screwed through no fault of your own, leading to ~ 40% "interesting matches" that aren't decided by who got less screwed by their mana supply)... although the cost of a collectible game with stupid-ridiculous secondary market economy helped (who can still afford to play that game?!).
I find this prevailing sentiment here ironic given it's from superfans of a game with considerable dice variance. Either way, this willfully ignores the deck archetypes that perform reliably in competitive play across different formats and the level of skill involved in deck building and balancing a mana curve. Or do you think it's pure chance that these decks have flourished? Are you implying that in the history of MtG, some of the most decorated (and Hall of Fame) players luck-sacked their way into success? It's cool if you dislike the game, vanilla vs. chocolate and all that, but that notion is a stretch.
Ah the dice argument. Rolling mitt-fulls of essentially 3-sided dice is pretty low variance. On the other hand, MW could be played without dice and it wouldn't change much. The expectation value per die is 1, with 0.5 critical and 0.5 regular. You could use expectations and never roll dice if you wanted. But the dice add a little uncertainty, which I personally like. A Bitterwood Fox has a slim but nonzero chance of damaging an Iron Golem, for instance, instead of "blocker's toughness exceeds attacker's power" style determination.
As for MTG, there is certainly skill involved. Over time, good players will have better results than bad players. I love(d) MTG despite all its flaws - but i don't play it anymore for a lot of reasons. And with MW around, I don't miss MTG.
The point you may have missed is that you can build a 60-card MTG deck with the mathematically correct distribution of resource cards and spells (typically 24 lands in the absence of other accelerators), draw 7 and be forced to mulligan one or more times. Or say you draw 3 lands and 4 spells that cost 4+, decide to go with it (you're unlikely to do better), and then draw nothing but more expensive spells while your opponent beats you down and you're stuck at 3 lands. In the gaming world, that's a negative play experience (NPE) that tends to discourage people. And that (and various others, like being flooded in mana with no useful spells, or being unable to draw your 4-of answer that you need, or whatever) comes up a lot in MTG. A simple rule change, where you divide your deck into lands and nonlands and chose which to draw from whenever you draw a card, would solve the issue... but it would probably ruin the secondary market for dual lands and such, and WotC is already intimidated by their superfans and those looking to retire off proceeds from their "no reprint" collections... but I digress.
On topic, there's variance and then there's NPE "can't play the game because no resources" - and variance can be desirable, but NPE never is. MW has one; MTG has the other.
And the board control mechanics are among the features of Mage Wars that make it unique and interesting - along with access to any card in your entire "deck" on any given turn, the way enchantments work, etc.
There's nothing overly innovative or unique about board control in this game. Hindering, guard, et al., are derivative and easy to circumvent since you can dial up an answer on any given turn. And teleport. Screw teleport with a boat oar. Seriously.
<Insert butt-hurt puppy image here>
And the board is too small at 4x3 to be a factor in positioning. I won/lost games due more to sequencing of plays and whether I went for the face or not, rather than poor positioning. Enchantments are cool and have potential, but they ruined some of that by making spells like Nullify mandatory reveals.
Mage Wars is essentially an overbaked hybrid of Starcraft and Hearthstone IRL form. It's a fine game and product backed by a good company. It didn't reinvent gaming, fight world hunger, cure cancer, or sleep with everyone's mom last night. It's not any more or less strategic/tactical as any other good games out there as many MW Evangelists claim IMO.
So... why are you here, posting on the Arcane Wonders MW forum? Are you trying to convince people not to play MW? To play something else? Are you encouraging the designers to print cards that prevent teleport, a better Nullify that isn't a forced reveal, etc? Do you just want to insult people because it makes you feel good?
Mage Wars isn't as popular as some other similar games. The OP wonders why that is. I think most of us on this forum would like to see MW gain in popularity because it's a very good game that has several improvements over its competition and lots of promise - that is, even if you don't like some cards and interactions, the core rules are a great framework for expansion and improvement as new cards and mages are developed.
So what can be done to increase the popularity of MW?
