@paradox: I'm usually the one being abrasive, but...you could have been less abrasive, just then.
@OP:
Because of the nature of equipment, its cost-to-effect ratio is a null-point to the argument, as I see it. Equipment is always going to be more effective than equipment destruction that is singular in design. By that I mean spells like "Dissolve" that exclusively destroy equipment cards. A best-case scenario for a card like Dissolve creates a null-gain for both Mages, where each expended the same amount of resource to have the board exactly as before the equipment was equipped. Except that equipment is proactive, and equipment destruction is reactive. Unless you happen to choose to put a Dissolve in your hand the turn I choose to equip something, I have a full turn with my equipment in place. So the whole "null gain" argument is also kind of out the window. Proactive vs. Reactive.
Now, Cards that have a secondary or inverse-primary effect (like explode) will always be more cost-effective than equipment cards, because they advance game in other ways than simply denying me something for which I paid.
While I feel that, right now, equipment very much trumps equipment destruction, I think it's a minor play on the game, and ultimately doesn't swing balance in one direction or the other too dramatically.
-nihil
This is pretty much the exact conversation I had with two guys I play with. One of the guys was concerned that equipment destruction was too strong, and my argument was that all it really did was reset the game to a neutral state since both players expended the same rescources. But you bring up a good additional point in your assesment that the player with the equipment actually comes out a bit ahead since they will probably have at least one round of use out of the gear.
This will only b the case sometimes and I think that this is sometimes right, but not in the explicit vs. implicit sense. In the implicit sense, how badly did the gear user need the card? Is it part of a combo for the gear holder? If so the benefit to the dissolve is higher than pro-active/reactive. Also, in the case of a wand, you kill 2 cards not 1. There will always be an implicit cost, it must be accounted for.
Another way to think of this: is killing that card helping my combinations? More implicit value there then.
Additionally, there is no guarantee that you will use the gear immediately. I am about 14 games in now and I VERY often use my Mage to melee attack. So what I often do now is plan 2 cards and use 1 of them.
A reactive and proactive. I meta/remove something if opportunity knocks, or save the quickcast for at the end of the turn if I am stunned.
This is especially true for mage wand. Elemental Wand not as often but still true.
Simple example: You quickcast a wand thinking you can use it on your creature action. I dissolve it on my quickcast and then melee you on my creature action.
Or, you use your full to cast it thinking you can quickcast it after. I dissolve that way too. With my creature or later quickcast if I have initiative.
I am simply arguing that you cast it and use it a lot less than you think. As the mage in the decks often go melee now, it is very common to to use only 1 spell a turn. When I am in that mode--- which is almost every game, I using my planning phase to be flexible. A kill/support card AND a meta card, and use one, whichever fits the moment.
