[AreaOfEffect]

The question has never been about the usefulness of the Magister Arcana in my opinion. They are indeed a solid mage. Their is plenty to do with each variant.

However...

That does not justify their cost. I can just as easily rant off a couple dozen uses for any mage with 4 magic skills in total. The ultimate problem here is that Man is magically hindered, both in the reliability of their research curve, and in their gem income.

Don't get me wrong, I like the Magister Arcana. His lack of mobility is easily countered by his ability to cloud trapeze. The fact that he has air magic more then anything else is synergistic with their troops, spite what others might say. When an opponent sees you deploying that much missile fire the natural solution is to cast storm. In turn Man should counter by casting storm power and evocation spells. Have your enemy waste the gems on a spell that helps you just as much as it helps them. Also, aim plus gift of the heavens can be devastating. The best part of the commander, you can make him anywhere.

None of this changes that fact that Late-Age Man can't close the deal in a competitive game. In the end, the upkeep they pay for the effective battle power they get hinders their opportunity for victory. Sadly the Magister Arcana is just one piece in the puzzle as to why Man has yet to achieve a MP victory. To blame the Magister Arcana exclusively would be crime.

Amorphous, as for comparing units on a one-to-one basis, you are correct. It is not reason enough to make a judgment. Improve the Magister Arcana and you will always find another "worse mage ever". My personal feeling is that, as a whole, Man is magically weaker then most, if not all, it's contemporaries. The lack of magic ability translates to a weak late game. The usual balancing factor would be a strong early game, but Man doesn't have this either in my opinion. Man has just too many needs by the end of the day, and the 120 "free" points just aren't enough.