Talk:Anti-Mage

Rewrite
I do apologize erasing the english description, i was trying to literate traslate it to spanish. I didn´t mean to. I am trying to recover it from history.

Wow, the person who wrote description and basic strategy has no clue about AM. In fact AM is weak against enemy casters since his puny 64 mana burn can't bring down their 1500-2000 mana pools fast enough and they can disable/slow him easily. Antimage IS vulnerable to nukes because he has very-very low HP and magic resistance doesn't stack directly, so he still suffers greatly from powerfull nukes. He IS strong against heroes like Slardar and Tidehunter because they have like 400 mana so he can burn it completely in 1-2 seconds leaving them with no mana - defenceless, useless and vulnerable. Also, there are different skill builds for AM since you have to adjust your playstyle against various opponets. Mana break is not top-priority ability for him if he is not going to gank. --XRdR 04:05, 10 October 2011 (CDT)
 * Oh I get it. We write the article backwards so nobody can learn how to play anti-mage, then we'll stop seeing him show up in games. Good idea! -Lancey 08:33, 10 October 2011 (CDT)
 * Learning dota from wiki? Seriously? Are you trying to write a guide here? Isn't that completely Un-wiki-like? And please, don't teach noobs the wrong way to play AM. Do you wanna increase the population of feeders in dota 2? --XRdR 08:52, 10 October 2011 (CDT)
 * I think you play anti-mage far differently from what I've seen. Am burns through casters but slardar, etc can smack him around because they aren't as dependent on mana. -Lancey 09:36, 10 October 2011 (CDT)
 * Oh, please, I have 8 years of Dota experience. Any hard carry easily tears apart supports in the late game and AM's mana break doesn't make him any stronger in this. And no, heroes like Slardar and Tidehunter lose 90% of their usefullnes without mana since they are both heavily-reliant on thier abilities. They can't smack him down without mana since AM's BAT and agility alows him to out-DPS them easily. Try playing Tidehunter without casting any of his spells/items that use mana. Have fun surviving. If a newbie player reads your guide he might have a false impression that AM can easily kill casters early-mid game. Which is not true. Have you ever tried towerdiving, let's say... Lion on level 6? Your magic resitance won't save you from eating his spells and dying. Your magic resistance kicks-in only if you have enough hp to back it up. Most of the spellcasters in Dota can shut down AM in one combo if has less than 1000+ hp. --XRdR 10:44, 10 October 2011 (CDT)
 * Relax... Tidehunter is not a good example for this article, but then again, DotA (and hence Dota 2) is quite a fluid game, there's no saying "Anti-mage is good against ALL INT" or "Anti-mage is not good against INT at early game" and so on... Disablers like Rhasta and Rubick can destroy a tower-diving Anti-mage at early game, since most damages in early game come from physical damage (tower/creeps) anyway. Anti-mage is good against certain casters (especially Lich) but weak against some (disablers) too. I can see (from previous contributions) that XRdR has good experience in DotA, but for generalization purpose just change the description from "unstoppable against enemy casters" to "fearful against enemy casters"... something like that is fine enough for casual DotA players.
 * I still don't understand your argument. Of course casters are hard to kill when you tower dive because you're getting pelted with physical damage from the tower, as well as their spells. Tidehunter and Slardar are also strong against anti-mage because 1) they can use their spells before he burns through their mana and 2) their mana pools are so small that he loses his bonus damage from mana break and mana void. The additional 60% damage from mana break means he can deal more damage against intelligence heroes. In a gank, anti-mage can usually take down a caster in much less time and with much less damage than a strength hero. I respect that you've been contributing some of your knowledge to the wiki but I ask that you be more constructive when it comes to discussion, rather than the way you're acting now. Instead of saying the article is wrong, how about you propose different wording, or maybe even change the article. -Lancey 11:57, 10 October 2011 (CDT)


 * Alright, I can explain this, but it will take a lot of space and time. I'll write it tommorow if you insist, but I advise you to listen to us. We have experinced all of this, so we know what are we talking about. --XRdR 12:08, 10 October 2011 (CDT)