How important is Mana?

[Biblofilter]

I often have pretty big mana issues, cause im not building as much economy as most people do.

Still you won´t ever run out of mana. You might run out of creatures, spells and in the end life.

Are mana overrated?

[Kaarin]

Mana is important because it limits quality of your actions in turn.
In my last game I played Warlord against mana denial Wizard. Game was close and if I wouldn't have run two spaces in the round he had cast the gate, he could have summoned one more creature that could give him victory. It was just one mana but it was enough for denying him an action. Also it was mana I saved that round that allowed me to act normally after his attempts at mana denial.

[Pyrion]

I wouldn't say that mana is overrated and I agree on what Kaarin said.
In my opinion you could rather say that other "resources" such as actions and spellbookpoints are often underrated especially by newer players.
More creature actions give you more opportunities to react to what the opponent does e.g. by guarding, applying conditions on enemy creatures, etc.
Familiar- and spawnpointactions let you plan and cast more spells which is always good for either reacting or putting pressure on your opponent eg. by getting an early creature advantage.
If you use your spellbookpoints efficently you can counter more of your enemies possible moves which also can save you mana if you have a very mana efficient counter in your deck. In addition to that an efficient spellbookpoint planning could be the small advantage in longer games you have over your opponent to win the match.
You can have as much mana as you want, if you don't have the actions to use it or just not the right spells to spend it on it gets almost useless. Also having good ways of reacting to different situations often let you getting advantage even if you spent less mana than your opponent.
In the end I think a spellbook should find a good balance between all three resources (mana, actions and spellbookpoints), with corresponding modifications depending on which mage you play and which strategy you pursue, in order to be competitive.

[Enti]

I think I underestimated mana in the past. Maybe still.

[Kelanen]

You don't need mana if you are confident of a quick kill. The problem is that most books/players can defend adequately against that (and over the expansions defensive play has been buffed more than hyper-aggressive play), so in reality you can only get a quick kill on a poorly prepared player, hence it goes to a mid to long game, and then mana is very important. I have 25 books built, and I think 5 don't permanently boost their channelling (and usually actions also). And even then a lot of aggressive books will find room for WispWillow amulet...

So yeah, the reality is that channelling is really important if you don't want to flip a coin on an early kill, or if you are planning any kind of longer game.

[Kaarin]

Another thing. If mana would be overrated then people would play Razortusk as it's cheaper than the wolf.

[Biblofilter]

Another thing. If mana would be overrated then people would play Razortusk as it's cheaper than the wolf.

I play Falcons because i get flying for 1 mana compared to Foxes.

Is having a better economy the way to win at Mage Wars?

If the answer is yes - well Wizard seems strong then.

[Kelanen]

If the answer is yes - well Wizard seems strong then.

It is - still Tier 1. Just not with Wizards Tower.

[SharkBait]

Another thing. If mana would be overrated then people would play Razortusk as it's cheaper than the wolf.

I play Falcons because i get flying for 1 mana compared to Foxes.

Is having a better economy the way to win at Mage Wars?

If the answer is yes - well Wizard seems strong then.

Mana is SUPER overrated. In fact, next time we play, I'll just give myself your mana so you don't have to deal with the extra

[wtcannonjr]

Another way to consider this question is to ask "How Important is the Cast a Spell action?"

After all, each mage starts with a physical attack ranging from 1 to 4 dice including mage abilities and the ability to take move and attack actions without spending any mana. If neither player had a spellbook, then the game rules still allow you to fight a battle to the death in the arena.

Ranking the mages based on physical abilities alone seems much easier when mana doesn't enter the picture.

How much mana would each mage be willing to pay to prevent the other player from taking a Cast a Spell action? It seems that the Arraxian Crown Warlock, Bloodwave Warlord, and Straywood Beastmaster would pay more mana to maintain there physical advantages while the other mages prefer to spend their mana on casting spells that improve their situation against stronger foes.