spellbind

[Arkdeniz]

How about making the spellbind power a one-shot thing?

That is, the wand in your book is a blank slate, waiting for a spell to be bound to it, but once one is bound, that's it. the spell cannot be swapped out. You have effectively made a Wand of Teleport, or a Wand of Dissolve, or a Wand of Lightning Bolt.

That way you would get the power to adapt to the game situation you find yourself in, but do not have a completely mutable toolbox at your command for every time the game state changes.

That would work for me, I think.

[exid]

That is, the wand in your book is a blank slate, waiting for a spell to be bound to it, but once one is bound, that's it. the spell cannot be swapped out. You have effectively made a Wand of Teleport, or a Wand of Dissolve, or a Wand of Lightning Bolt.

you don't have the building thinking, but at least you have to think during the game!

[Kaarin]

How about making the spellbind power a one-shot thing?

That is, the wand in your book is a blank slate, waiting for a spell to be bound to it, but once one is bound, that's it. the spell cannot be swapped out. You have effectively made a Wand of Teleport, or a Wand of Dissolve, or a Wand of Lightning Bolt.

That way you would get the power to adapt to the game situation you find yourself in, but do not have a completely mutable toolbox at your command for every time the game state changes.

That would work for me, I think.

What happens when I return wand to spellbook by casting other item on its slot? Maybe even other wand.

[Arkdeniz]

What happens when I return wand to spellbook by casting other item on its slot? Maybe even other wand.

That is a good question.

I would make two immediate suggestions:

1) the spellbound spell goes back into the book with the wand, and if the wand is recast the spell comes back out with it (and if the spell card gets used in the meantime the wand becomes inert).
2) putting it back in the book resets the wand which, if recast, can have another spell put on it.

The former is in my view the better option but is also the higher trust/higher memory option.
The latter basically increases the cost of changing the bound spell both in mana and action (since it will require another equipment spell (and its action) as well as a fresh cast of the wand). 

(of course, this question also opens up a bugbear can of worms of mine about the ability to replace equipment back into the book, but that is for another day)

[DaveW]

I am perfectly happy with the Spellbind trait as is. Wands in particular are why I have Dissolves in my books. As with anything, there are ways around it. I would even have been happy with Wizard's Tower retaining Spellbind, if it weren't for the silly no cost replacement during planning.

A wand gains you less functionality than Mordok's Tome, in that you have to pay mana to change out the spell with a wand (whether by replacing the wand with another, or using the quick action plus mana). In addition, nothing happens to the planned spell if the book gets dissolved. Are we now getting rid of the book, now that it's just recently come out?

Creatures with Spellbind all of a sudden see much less use if spellbind goes away. Personally, I see a lot of harm that comes to the game from modifying or eliminating spellbind.

[jacksmack]

Whats the problem with spellbind? i don't get it?

The first thing everyone and their grandma does when they see a wand is to shit their pants and make a plan on they can remove it as soon as possible.

The only time you should bother destroying a wand is if you play a long undo book yourself. And in those instances the game is about undoing and outlasting anyway. Spellbind doesn't change much there either because 1 player will run out of key cards faster regardless of the spellbind trait.

In all other scenarios, just be happy that your opponent paid 5 additional mana to teleport/dissolve/dispell/whatever.
Either Turn up the tempo and apply even more pressure, or play around it.
Opponent played magewand + dispell against your curselock - put out (1 more) Enchanters stone.
etc etc.

[wtcannonjr]

Whats the problem with spellbind? i don't get it?

The first thing everyone and their grandma does when they see a wand is to shit their pants and make a plan on they can remove it as soon as possible.

The only time you should bother destroying a wand is if you play a long undo book yourself. And in those instances the game is about undoing and outlasting anyway. Spellbind doesn't change much there either because 1 player will run out of key cards faster regardless of the spellbind trait.

In all other scenarios, just be happy that your opponent paid 5 additional mana to teleport/dissolve/dispell/whatever.
Either Turn up the tempo and apply even more pressure, or play around it.
Opponent played magewand + dispell against your curselock - put out (1 more) Enchanters stone.
etc etc.

+1

[exid]

If you like quick games, spellbind is not a problem: you will kill your opponent quicker than his heal-wand heals him, and you won't have time to use more than 4 copies of youre spells.
For quick books, a spellbind is only a third planning.

but if you like to open the building possibilities for more long games, there is spellbind more powerfull.

[wtcannonjr]

If you like quick games, spellbind is not a problem: you will kill your opponent quicker than his heal-wand heals him, and you won't have time to use more than 4 copies of youre spells.
For quick books, a spellbind is only a third planning.

but if you like to open the building possibilities for more long games, there is spellbind more powerfull.

It seems you always have the option that Jacksmack pointed out to just "play around it."

I think there is a difference between more powerful and too powerful. I agree that certain spells will be more powerful in long games rather than short games. For example, Spawnpoints and Sunfire Amulet come to mind as very powerful in say a game lasting 20 to 40 rounds. However, I don't see this as a problem. If you are designing a spellbook for a long game strategy, then you need to have a counter for those spells that are stronger in a long game. The counter may not always be another spell, but perhaps a shift in game tactics or tempo.

[Sailor Vulcan]

Would like to remind everyone again that the spell point system makes it so that things that would otherwise imbalance gameplay usually imbalance deck building instead. The problem here, if it's a problem, would not be how difficult it is to counter spellbind objects during a game, but rather the constraints it places on future card design and spellbook design. More strategic diversity makes for more fun metagames, and Mage Wars stands out from other similar games in large part *because nobody has ever managed to successfully count all of the possibile viable strategies for a given meta*. I suspect that if spellbind is a problem, it won't be easy to spot right away, especially if new sets are released at a fast enough rate to refresh the meta before people start running out of viable deck ideas.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J320A using Tapatalk