SFR, Inc. Forum Index SFR, Inc.
Forums that relate to SFR products
 
 Watched TopicsWatched Topics   FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Magic Discussion
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
 
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    SFR, Inc. Forum Index -> 3.01 and later Rules Discussion - Locked
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
stormywaters
rare



Joined: 22 May 2011
Posts: 1392

usa.gif
PostPosted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 2:14 am GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

SpazzyP wrote:
That was the point I was trying to make.


Doesn't sound like it:

"If ID's were not doubled than Sunflares would rule the magic game."

You're saying that the removal of doubling makes Sunflares suddenly amazing. They're slightly better per health than Elder Dryads, and Elder Dryads have Cantrip. This is a nonstarter.

Quote:
I do see your point. But DD is a game of chance. Yes a lot of skill is involved but that "if" will always exist.


As I've stated countless times, of course this is a game of chance, to a degree. That's never once been disputed. However, it's not just "roll a bunch of dice and whoever gets the most wins". There is a great depth of strategy and planning. By leveling the playing field, making all races and action types balanced to be the same relative power level, you make the game fair and increase depth. By leaving magic as the clear winner in terms of power, you're saying "You've got to play magic or get crushed by it".

Quote:
I agree, but if we are talking about making the rules more simple it would not be for the people here that know the rules backwards and forwards. (although somethings can be a bit confusing usually a quick question on the rules discussion will clear it up). It would be for the new guy, right? and that is not a rhetorical question, I am really asking that. And the new guy isn't going to see the horde roll as something he can lose. He will see it as a huge advantage, or disadvantage if he loses. Sorry I am being long winded and kind of talking in circles.


Yes, the new player will see the horde roll as immensely important. In the same way a new player to Magic sees a 10/10 creature as "really awesome". They don't yet understand the complexities, but they will, in time.

This is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, however. You're saying "Don't change magic to make it balanced. It's fine, because you can just use one terrain, if you win the terrain choice, and if your opponent is somehow forced into that terrain. Then they can't double, so everything else is fine!"

That's not how it works. Then everyone who wants a chance of playing no mages is required to take a Grove to keep the opposing mages in check, and they're then required to somehow force the opponent to that terrain. That is not a balanced game, or a good "strategy".
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message
J.T.Silversmith
dragonfoal



Joined: 27 Nov 2006
Posts: 23
Location: California

usa.gif
PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 10:55 pm GMT    Post subject: Why we need magic doubling Reply with quote

I think I will direct my comments to stormywaters because he is the most vocal of the people who think magic is “too powerful” and that removing magic doubling would improve game play, mostly as an easy way to address all the issues being discussed. But I don’t really want you to think this is a personal attack, I am just trying to explain clearly what I believe many others feel.

I am going to have to disagree with you; I don’t really see magic as being too powerful. Compared to Melee or Missile, magic is much more flexible, and under certain circumstances very effective, but magic alone will not win a game. You need to capture terrains to win, and you can’t do that directly with magic, nor can you do it very well with just magicians.

You said “Magic, conversely, can take place at any distance, doesn't allow counterattacks, and can do things melee cannot (resurrection, path, dancing lights, etc).” That statement is not really correct, nor is it limited to magic. You can only do magic at extreme distances, or on an 8th face, so you can not do magic at any range. I could say “Missile attacks can take place at a distance, doesn't allow counterattacks, and can do things melee cannot.” Does that mean that Missile attacks are overpowered and need to be toned down? Of course not, that is how it is supposed to work. If an enemy’s army is using magic to attack your army that means you can use magic to attack back on your turn, just like two missile units at the same terrain.

I think the intention of the game rules is to give each type of unit a best case scenario, or in other words for the sake of game balance each attack has it’s strengths and weaknesses. Magic doubling is the best case scenario for a wizard army, like an archer unit on a tower, or a cavalry unit defending an 8th face. A wizard army on a terrain at 1 or 2 may be doing a lot of things with magic, but they are a long way from the 8th face and actually winning a game.

A melee unit on a terrain where they can make a melee attack only has to maneuver through a couple of faces before they can capture a terrain, and they are effective the whole way. For an Archer unit to capture a terrain, they have to either shoot any opposition before they reach melee range, or make a run for it and hope they can take the terrain before they are all killed by a melee unit. Wizards would have to move through both missile and melee range before they can become effective again. Not a pretty proposition for most mages.

To summarize, wizards are not overpowered, they are simply good at what they are supposed to be good at, and magic doubling is simply the game mechanic that has been used to make that happen. I have played many games by older rules where magic was much more powerful, and I never once thought “wow these mages are just too strong”.

Some of my favorite games that I love to tell stories about are from playing 36 health battles under the first edition rules. Back then spells like hailstorm were a legitimate threat to an army. I remember using Coral Elves, on a coastland terrain, and rolling 14 points of magic, doubled to 28. I cast 28 hailstorms against a 12 health on an enemy archer unit that was trying to target my wizards. I obliterated them obviously, and the next turn his wizards revived the entire missile unit. In another game I wiped out my opponents entire force except for two eagle riders, they did magic, both rolled ID icons, revived his wizards, and he eventually won the game.

Some people could look at those stories and say that they were a perfect example of magic being overpowered, and they might have been right, but I say it is an example of what was great about Dragon Diceâ„¢, those games were fun, anything could happen. I remember cavalry charges, and Dwarven Mammoth Riders destroying anyone foolish enough to stand in their way, or summoning three green dragons to crush the enemy wizards. They were so memorable and so fun that I can remember them fifteen years later. It is why I always carry my Dragon Diceâ„¢ in the trunk of my car, why I spent $100 on Dragon Diceâ„¢ last January.

In my opinion Magic is not overpowered, you think it is too strong, but those are not facts, simply our opinions, and are both equally valid.

To move on to your other reasons for wanting to change doubling, you said:
1. Magic doubling adds confusion
2. Magic doubling takes too much time
3. Magic doubling makes a small number of mages generate a much larger number of results

Since I know of exactly one person in the town where I live that owns DragonDice, if I want to play a game I have to teach them how to play, and let them use my dice. I have showed many people how to play, Magic doubling only takes about a minute to explain at the beginning of the game for the normal races, If someone is playing a race that uses black magic, it can easily take twice that to explain, and I have to repeat it a few times, but anyone who has played through one game has gotten it. Explaining black magic is much harder than the other types, but neither is an impediment to playing or enjoying the game. I frequently play games with four to six players, often with one or two new players, and will spend less than five minutes reminding players of the doubling rules in a three hour game. That is not taking up too much time or causing confusion.
It is a fact that the doubling rules are a little complex (and might be worth trying to simplify), but it is your opinion that that complexity causes confusion and takes too much time.

Your third point is true, magic doubling does increase the effectiveness of a magic unit, just as being on a tower increases the effectiveness of an archer unit, or capturing an 8th face will make a melee unit more effective. However I see that as a necessary balance, that is why wizards go onto a terrain, and don’t just do magic in reserves, because that is where they can do the most good, why they risk being shot at or stabbed or blasted by a dragon.

Why does the game need magic doubling? Can a one health fighter kill another common unit at melee range? Yes. Can a common Archer kill another common unit as missile range? Yes. Can a common wizard kill a common unit at Magic range? Without doubling, the answer is only on a 1 in 6 roll, on an average roll, they can’t. Magicians can’t fight very well, can’t shoot very well, aren’t very fast or save very well, and they can’t kill another unit within their own specialty as easily as missile or melee units can.

Do I think magic is perfect as it is, no I know it isn’t, there is room for streamlining and improvement in the spell lists and other things that could make the game more accessible for beginners, but the current mechanics are OK in this case. I will try to post some ideas and observations that I think could improve things Monday, I’ve run out of time today.
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message
AC
common



Joined: 26 Feb 2012
Posts: 317
Location: DC GMA

usa.gif
PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 10:02 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

The above (Mr. Silversmith's post) contains valid considerations, but also a critical oversight. Estimation of the relative strength of magic vis-a-vis an opposing army in the march toward an eighth face is all well and good if capturing two terrains is the only way to win. It is not. One may also win by eliminating all his enemy's forces, or by establishing a position of such dominance, usually by inflicting significant losses, that his enemy concedes rather than draw out the game unnecessarily to a foregone conclusion.

It is in application toward these latter ends that magic excels. In particular, the tactic of choice in many games (by report and as evidenced in on-line games here in these forums) seems to be to capture a single eighth face, focus one's forces there, and whittle down the opponent with large amounts of magic. The mages are never forced to pass through a melee face on a terrain die. They are protected from reprisal by dragonkin or other forces. Advantage compounds advantage; the game slows and becomes predictable. In essence, whoever is first to this tactical high-ground dictates the remainder of the game in bland fashion. This is certainly not always the case, but if it occurs with any regularity, we, in the interests of ever improving on the game, ought to look into: a) whether this is desirable, and b) if it is not desirable, how we might discourage it.

We naturally would do well to avoid qualitative terms like too powerful, but there is ample evidence that magic is powerful. The game designers put a restriction on the amount of magic permitted in one's forces -- not in tournament or optional rules, but in the core set. There are no such limits on melee, missile, or maneuver. One can win with an army that has no significant melee presence. One can certainly win with an army that has no missile presence. If the consensus is, however, that one cannot realistically consistently challenge for victory without a significant magic presence, per the above duty we are best served to investigate if this is the case. If it is so, it stands to reason then that magic being more powerful than missile or melee is undeniable. If he who brings no wizards is always at a disadvantage, then we have placed unneeded fetters upon the theoretical flexibility of army construction.

While I can see benefit to the removal or change of magic doubling rules, I am not out to make it the bogeyman whose banishment would prove panacea. Nonetheless, playtesting along lines such as have been proposed is certainly in order. If it turns out that the presence of magic doubling improves the game, then it should stay. There are other ways by which we might diminish magic's relative potency. Even if the solution is so simple as once again raising spell costs, we would be remiss not to explore all avenues in the interest of bettering the game.
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message
stormywaters
rare



Joined: 22 May 2011
Posts: 1392

usa.gif
PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 11:06 pm GMT    Post subject: Re: Why we need magic doubling Reply with quote

J.T.Silversmith wrote:
I am going to have to disagree with you; I don’t really see magic as being too powerful. Compared to Melee or Missile, magic is much more flexible, and under certain circumstances very effective, but magic alone will not win a game. You need to capture terrains to win, and you can’t do that directly with magic, nor can you do it very well with just magicians.


This has already been addressed, but to elaborate: You can't do that directly with missile or melee either. You need maneuvers. Attacks don't turn terrains. This is a nonstarter.

Quote:
You said “Magic, conversely, can take place at any distance, doesn't allow counterattacks, and can do things melee cannot (resurrection, path, dancing lights, etc).” That statement is not really correct, nor is it limited to magic. You can only do magic at extreme distances, or on an 8th face, so you can not do magic at any range.


"Range" being from any terrain to any other location. From one Home to another Home. From Frontier to Reserves. All the time. Doesn't require an 8th face to gain this ability; it's always able to reach any location.

Quote:
I could say “Missile attacks can take place at a distance, doesn't allow counterattacks, and can do things melee cannot.”


Wrong. Missile can target one terrain over, and not reserves. That's not any "distance" as I clearly intended it. Furthermore, it cannot do things melee cannot (apart from range). It can deal damage that the army saves against. It's the same as melee, but at a range and without counterattack. It can't summon dragons, creates saves or maneuvers, resurrect units, etc.

Quote:
Does that mean that Missile attacks are overpowered and need to be toned down? Of course not, that is how it is supposed to work. If an enemy’s army is using magic to attack your army that means you can use magic to attack back on your turn, just like two missile units at the same terrain.


This is a terrible straw man.

Quote:
I think the intention of the game rules is to give each type of unit a best case scenario, or in other words for the sake of game balance each attack has it’s strengths and weaknesses. Magic doubling is the best case scenario for a wizard army, like an archer unit on a tower, or a cavalry unit defending an 8th face. A wizard army on a terrain at 1 or 2 may be doing a lot of things with magic, but they are a long way from the 8th face and actually winning a game.


Wrong on many levels.

1. Archer on a Tower or Cavalry on an 8th face BOTH require an 8th face. Magic doesn't.

2. Archers on an 8 still can only do archery. They shoot, deal damage, the defending army rolls saves. Magic can kill without saves, target all the damage, bury units, resurrect, Path, Transmute, etc.

3. Magic requires approximately 0 terrain captures to win. I can easily sit at a 1 with 'kin and cast Lightning Strikes. Furthermore, you can't Flash Flood me off that 1, like you can with an 8.

Quote:
A melee unit on a terrain where they can make a melee attack only has to maneuver through a couple of faces before they can capture a terrain, and they are effective the whole way. For an Archer unit to capture a terrain, they have to either shoot any opposition before they reach melee range, or make a run for it and hope they can take the terrain before they are all killed by a melee unit. Wizards would have to move through both missile and melee range before they can become effective again. Not a pretty proposition for most mages.


They don't have to. They can kill you without it. Or turtle and push it to 8, where they suddenly win.

Quote:
To summarize, wizards are not overpowered, they are simply good at what they are supposed to be good at, and magic doubling is simply the game mechanic that has been used to make that happen. I have played many games by older rules where magic was much more powerful, and I never once thought “wow these mages are just too strong”.


Magic doubling isn't need to make mages strong. They are strong without it.

Quote:
Since I know of exactly one person in the town where I live that owns DragonDice, if I want to play a game I have to teach them how to play, and let them use my dice. I have showed many people how to play, Magic doubling only takes about a minute to explain at the beginning of the game for the normal races, If someone is playing a race that uses black magic, it can easily take twice that to explain, and I have to repeat it a few times, but anyone who has played through one game has gotten it. Explaining black magic is much harder than the other types, but neither is an impediment to playing or enjoying the game. I frequently play games with four to six players, often with one or two new players, and will spend less than five minutes reminding players of the doubling rules in a three hour game. That is not taking up too much time or causing confusion.
It is a fact that the doubling rules are a little complex (and might be worth trying to simplify), but it is your opinion that that complexity causes confusion and takes too much time.


This is another straw man. Doubling is simple, on paper. It's an easy concept to grasp. Again, I'll ask:

My mages are: 2 Wolverine-Folk, 1x Death Mage, 3x Hedge Wizard, 5x Weasel-Folk, and I'm under Dancing Lights at a Swampland City. There are 3 health in one DUA. I roll for magic:

Wolverine: ID, Cantrip
Death Mage: 3 Magic
Hedge Wizard: ID, ID, Saves
Weasel: ID, 1 Magic, 2 Magic, Melee, Melee

How many magic of each type do I have? What are my options? How much is left after a Lightning Strike, or two Finger of Death? What if I want to resurrect my 3 in the DUA? What options exist there?


Yeah, it's not that simple. You don't just go "I've got 7 points of ID, so it's 14 points total. Now to spend that 14." It is immensely more complex than that.

Quote:
Your third point is true, magic doubling does increase the effectiveness of a magic unit, just as being on a tower increases the effectiveness of an archer unit, or capturing an 8th face will make a melee unit more effective.


One of these things is not like the others. Oh, it's that magic doubling doesn't require an 8th face, and none of that makes a more concentrated, potent force with fewer units. Archers at a Tower don't suddenly generate a bunch of extra results.

Quote:
However I see that as a necessary balance, that is why wizards go onto a terrain, and don’t just do magic in reserves, because that is where they can do the most good, why they risk being shot at or stabbed or blasted by a dragon.


No, they go to a terrain because they can't do anything hostile from reserves. They can only cast defensive and buffing magic. If I could cast Lightning Strikes from reserves, I would always do that, doubling be damned.

Quote:
Why does the game need magic doubling? Can a one health fighter kill another common unit at melee range? Yes. Can a common Archer kill another common unit as missile range? Yes. Can a common wizard kill a common unit at Magic range? Without doubling, the answer is only on a 1 in 6 roll, on an average roll, they can’t. Magicians can’t fight very well, can’t shoot very well, aren’t very fast or save very well, and they can’t kill another unit within their own specialty as easily as missile or melee units can.


That's the balance you keep bringing up. They are balanced by not being able to kill things alone. They require a group of them, but with doubling they become increasingly more potent.
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message
J.T.Silversmith
dragonfoal



Joined: 27 Nov 2006
Posts: 23
Location: California

usa.gif
PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 4:48 pm GMT    Post subject: Can't we all just ge along? Reply with quote

All right, let me try this again. I don’t think I was clear enough in my last post. Stormywaters I am not trying to belittle your opinions, I am not trying to criticize you or anyone else on this forum. I am trying to have a rational conversation on the subject. There were some things you said that I thought were to easily misunderstood. I was attempting to clarify some of those points, and express my own opinions. You seem to be coming across a bit harshly, so I want to be certain that I did not say something that bothered you.

You said “This has already been addressed, but to elaborate: You can't do that directly with missile or melee either. You need maneuvers. Attacks don't turn terrains. This is a nonstarter.”
I think we are miss-communicating here, you have been talking about “Magic” in a general sense, and I was talking about a “magic using army”. You are correct in saying neither Missile Magic, or Melee, will win terrains, only maneuvers. I was trying to say something different. A melee army can capture an 8th face while making melee attacks. A magic using army cannot take an 8th face and do magic at the same time. They have to leave magic range and pass through missile and melee range before they can do magic again.

You said “Magic, conversely, can take place at any distance,” I did not think that statement was accurate enough. I think it would be more correct to say, magic can attack TO any distance, from a terrain at a 1or 2.
I think you were trying to say magic was inconsistent with the way missile and melee attacks work, and I disagree. Melee attacks damage at the same terrain, and allows counter attacks. Missile attacks damage at range and don’t allow a counter attack. Magic attacks damage at range and don’t allow a counter attack. In this case melee is the one that is the odd one out. In my opinion there is a logical progression between the three. Melee attacks are the least versatile. Missile attacks strike at range, and don’t allow a counter attack. Missile does what melee can’t, they are different. Magic attacks strike at range, and don’t allow counter attacks, but can do things other than kill people. Magic does what missile can’t, they are different.
Most of the above stuff is simply a misunderstanding or differences of opinion, and probably doesn’t warrant much discussion.


You said,” Archer on a Tower or Cavalry on an 8th face BOTH require an 8th face. Magic doesn't. “. I will not contest that in this case magic is different, however I think there is a reason for it.
As an example consider this. If you are using a single race army like Coral Elves, and you manage to capture a coastland standing stones. Is there any advantage to placing your wizards there, compared to a tower, or any other terrain type? Coral Elves don’t do well off of the coastlands, so there is a lot of incentive to stay on a coastland, but if you do, without doubling there would be no bonus to your magic at all. If you take out doubling, then there is no best case scenario for a single race magic army. In my opinion, there is some balance in the rules now, by removing doubling we will unbalance things, and need to re-work the standing stones 8th face icon as well. That is important to me because I always play single race armies. I know that is not the way a majority of players play, but I don’t think that there should be that sort of bias in the basic rules.


You said, “Magic requires approximately 0 terrain captures to win. I can easily sit at a 1 with 'kin and cast Lightning Strikes. Furthermore, you can't Flash Flood me off that 1, like you can with an 8.” I say have you really seen that many victories by annihilation by a magic army? That is really cool; I’ve never seen one in the current rules set. I think I have seen an undead army win by killing all of the opponents’ armies, and I have seen a few games where the Amazons got a Flatland tower, and speared everyone to death. I have seen a dragon clear everyone from a single terrain, but not from every one. In the 1.0 rules there were magic annihilation victories I suspect, but those days are long gone.
How often does that occur? I would love to hear from more people about this, is there a lot of times magicians wipe out all of the opposing forces? More frequently than from melee slaughter or missile rain of death? Since the 2.0 rules came out, I have not played a two player game, only three to six player games, and such victories are rare. I don’t see this as a problem because I have never encountered it. But if the majority of people say there is a problem then it is most likely that I am out of touch.


You said,”They don't have to. They can kill you without it. Or turtle and push it to 8, where they suddenly win.” This one made me laugh, the turtling wizards suddenly push a magic terrain to an 8th face and win? How did they “suddenly” advance to an 8, by turning it backwards from a 1 to an 8? OK I had better be careful, that was an attempt at humor, and I genuinely laughed when I read that. I don’t mean this to sound like I am making fun of you. In the scenario I was trying to describe, what you were saying was impossible.
Here is the set up I was talking about, Imagine the mid point of a two player game, you each have an 8th face on another terrain. The terrain we are talking about is at a 1, 2, or 3, the wizards have been doing magic, and now you need to capture the second terrain to win. In my hypothetical example, the magic army has to stay at this terrain, if they want to continue to cast spells, they can’t advance the terrain. If they want to win the game they have to stop doing magic and make a run for the 8. At best that is four turn of maneuvering and hoping you don’t get shot or blasted by his wizards, or caught by a melee army. Who is really going to let wizards run unopposed that long? Compare that to a missile army at one terrain advancing from where they are effective (i.e. at a 4, 5, or 6) to capture the terrain. At best that is two turns, with the same chances of getting attacked. Running and trying to keep an army alive for two turns is a lot more feasible. Compared to a melee army, going from the range they are effective to the range they can win the game is a whole lot easier, It could be as little as one turn, and they are at their most effective the whole way.


You said, “Magic doubling isn't needed to make mages strong. They are strong without it.” That is you opinion, this is mine, Mages were once powerful, but now they are just strong. If you take out doubling entirely without reducing basic spell costs, and re working 8th face effects, they will be weak, and the game will be less fun.

You said, ”My mages are: 2 Wolverine-Folk, 1x Death Mage, 3x Hedge Wizard, 5x Weasel-Folk, and I'm under Dancing Lights at a Swampland City. There are 3 health in one DUA. I roll for magic:

Wolverine: ID, Cantrip
Death Mage: 3 Magic
Hedge Wizard: ID, ID, Saves
Weasel: ID, 1 Magic, 2 Magic, Melee, Melee

How many magic of each type do I have? What are my options? How much is left after a Lightning Strike, or two Finger of Death? What if I want to resurrect my 3 in the DUA? What options exist there?

Yeah, it's not that simple. You don't just go "I've got 7 points of ID, so it's 14 points total. Now to spend that 14." It is immensely more complex than that. “
OK this one I admit I wasn’t thinking about, I always play single race, doubling is much harder this way. However I do maintain that no matter how long it takes to figure out how many magic points you have it still takes LONGER to decide how to SPEND them.
I do however have a suggestion regarding this, though I have never play tested it because I never needed to. Perhaps we could alter the racial spell idea a bit, as long as you have one magic user of that race to teach the rest of the army, the entire group can cast those racial spells. That way you only need to remember what spell lists you can use, rather than separating results by race. So if you have goblin and feral wizards, you can spend gold points from either race’s dice to cast either race’s spells. I think it is intuitive enough, if you have feral and goblins, you can cast feral and goblin spells, It is also easy to verify if the casting army has one of that race of magic user. It also adds some tactics you can try against them, tired it the opponent backlashing you? Target out his feral wizards.

You said, “Archers at a Tower don't suddenly generate a bunch of extra results.” That is not completely true, said the amazons. It also used to be that cavalry units would generate a bunch more results on an 8th face with the charging rules, which I think did not needed to be removed.
You said,”One of these things is not like the others. Oh, it's that magic doubling doesn't require an 8th face, and none of that makes a more concentrated, potent force with fewer units.” It is not identical, no, doubling does not require an 8th face, and instead it requires a specific terrain type. Often that means there is only one of the three that is favorable, and then only if it can be turned to magic range. There are enough limitations that it seems roughly equivalent in my opinion.


You said,”That's the balance you keep bringing up. They are balanced by not being able to kill things alone. They require a group of them, but with doubling they become increasingly more potent.” This is another semantics and opinions thing. A magic unit is not becoming stronger than it was in previous rules sets, if we keep the doubling rules; it is staying where it was. If we change the doubling rules they will not be balanced any more, and we would need to revise spell costs SAI’s and 8th face rules to regain it.


Doubling could be simplified, and working on spell costs, and lists and other ideas are certainly useful. I would like to talk about ideas to alter the 8th faces or whatever else.
I see a trend, in the change from 1.0 rules to 2.0, the biggest changes were to magic and melee. Removing charging and reducing magic doubling and increasing spell cost affected the game balance. Coral Elves and Lava Elves became weaker when magic was weakened, and the removal of charging considerably weakened Dwarves and Goblins and Amazons. Now there are further attempts to weaken magic, next will be Amazon counting maneuvers as missiles, and Firewalker terrain flight (if the path spell is removed, terrain flight is too powerful.” Lets not do to the other races what we all ready did to the Elves.
This seems like the “Whack a Mole” approach to game balance, of something is working well and is effective in the current rules it must be weakened, so it does not overpower the crappy stuff that is not working. Lets try a little more improving the effectiveness of the other stuff, or all that will be left is the crappy stuff.

To sum up, in your opinion Magic is to strong, in my opinion magic could be stronger. So we compromise, Magic stays at the same power level. And we stop arguing about it and focus on making it as simple and playable as possible.
Here is one suggestion, we could alter the racial spell idea a bit, as long as you have one magic user of that race to teach the rest of the army, the entire group can cast those racial spells. That way you only need to remember what spell lists you can use, rather than separating results by race. Laughing Laughing
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message
stormywaters
rare



Joined: 22 May 2011
Posts: 1392

usa.gif
PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 7:18 pm GMT    Post subject: Re: Can't we all just ge along? Reply with quote

J.T.Silversmith wrote:
You said “This has already been addressed, but to elaborate: You can't do that directly with missile or melee either. You need maneuvers. Attacks don't turn terrains. This is a nonstarter.”
I think we are miss-communicating here, you have been talking about “Magic” in a general sense, and I was talking about a “magic using army”. You are correct in saying neither Missile Magic, or Melee, will win terrains, only maneuvers. I was trying to say something different. A melee army can capture an 8th face while making melee attacks. A magic using army cannot take an 8th face and do magic at the same time. They have to leave magic range and pass through missile and melee range before they can do magic again.


Then melee is the odd-man out here. Missile has to pass through melee as well in order to capture terrains. I don't see the relevance in that observation, since (as has been demonstrated) one does not need to capture any terrains to win.

Quote:
You said “Magic, conversely, can take place at any distance,” I did not think that statement was accurate enough. I think it would be more correct to say, magic can attack TO any distance, from a terrain at a 1or 2.
I think you were trying to say magic was inconsistent with the way missile and melee attacks work, and I disagree. Melee attacks damage at the same terrain, and allows counter attacks. Missile attacks damage at range and don’t allow a counter attack. Magic attacks damage at range and don’t allow a counter attack. In this case melee is the one that is the odd one out. In my opinion there is a logical progression between the three. Melee attacks are the least versatile. Missile attacks strike at range, and don’t allow a counter attack. Missile does what melee can’t, they are different. Magic attacks strike at range, and don’t allow counter attacks, but can do things other than kill people. Magic does what missile can’t, they are different.
Most of the above stuff is simply a misunderstanding or differences of opinion, and probably doesn’t warrant much discussion.


It's a very, very important point to the power level of magic. Magic can hit ANY range (not just one terrain over), with no other considerations, and is the only offensive action that can be taken against armies in reserves. Furthermore, it can be taken in reserves, unique to action types (except in the very corner case of Amazons).

The fact that magic has literally no restrictions on how far it can reach with its influence speaks to its power. Adding in the fact that it has the most versatility, and unique options available to it, increase its power level relative to the other action types.

What balances this fact out? The limit on mages? We have doubling, so we don't need as many mages to generate the results. Low saves? Magic produces saves anyway. Terrain requirements? All action types require their "zone" where they can perform their action. The difference, of course, is magic in reserves can help to push terrains to magic faces. No other action type has *that* capability either.

Quote:
You said,” Archer on a Tower or Cavalry on an 8th face BOTH require an 8th face. Magic doesn't. “. I will not contest that in this case magic is different, however I think there is a reason for it.
As an example consider this. If you are using a single race army like Coral Elves, and you manage to capture a coastland standing stones. Is there any advantage to placing your wizards there, compared to a tower, or any other terrain type? Coral Elves don’t do well off of the coastlands, so there is a lot of incentive to stay on a coastland, but if you do, without doubling there would be no bonus to your magic at all. If you take out doubling, then there is no best case scenario for a single race magic army. In my opinion, there is some balance in the rules now, by removing doubling we will unbalance things, and need to re-work the standing stones 8th face icon as well. That is important to me because I always play single race armies. I know that is not the way a majority of players play, but I don’t think that there should be that sort of bias in the basic rules.


Yes, in the case of a specific army at a specific terrain, there is no need for a Standing Stones. Most single races can use Standing Stones, however: Goblins, Swamp Stalkers, Amazons, Frostwings, Lava Elves, Undead, Eldarim. That's 7 of the races. In addition, many races can use Standing Stones because they don't need their specific terrain type: Ferals, Firewalkers, Treefolk, Scalders.

So in a very few specific cases, Standing Stones isn't the right choice. That's not proof that magic is fine how it is.


I'll respond to the rest in a bit. Be right back.
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message
AC
common



Joined: 26 Feb 2012
Posts: 317
Location: DC GMA

usa.gif
PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 7:37 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

For completeness' sake: The first increase in spell point costs was not in the release of 2.0; it was in Monsters & Amazons, the first Kicker Pack. Already the designers realized that magic was incredibly potent -- and even with the change you could still Cantrip a Lightning Strike.

Charge was removed because it was a gamebreaker. Even without Leopard Riders, with terrain on your side you could easily generate 40+ damage and the supposed cost of the charge (being unable to defend yourself) was moot because you'd already won. This made Goblins/Dwarves the way to go.

You may or may not recall rules in version 1.0 pertaining to the Rout which made elves godawful (someone can dig up a link to the Bernie the Firewalker posts if you'd like to see the math). Elves produce magic at the exact same rate per die as Goblins and Dwarves, so I'm not sure where the argument that weakening magic weakened only elves originates.

That out of the way, it remains that opinions are not terribly relevant. How magic "feels" is not as important as whether or not a player is, ceteris paribus, at a disadvantage if s/he brings less magic than her/his opponent to a contest. If you need magic to consistently challenge for victory then there is a sharp restriction on army construction. Obviously, it is difficult to generate a statistically significant sample of playtested games with only a few people in on the effort, but a valid judgment is going to be born of quantitative analysis, not compromise on opinions.

It is not a given that the removal of magic doubling entirely is necessary to improve the magic system and game balance. Certainly it behooves us to maintain the importance of terrain color. Thus far, the only solution I've come up with that doesn't have an IF AND ONLY IF component that would screw black magic has to do with making icons produce magic results only on color-matching terrain (and having black still relate to DUA), but that can be hard to get a handle on. I could certainly see magic doubling remaining if there were other measures taken to limit magic, even if it's just spell cost increase.

By "turtle and push to 8th" he presumably means Path-to-Victory, which has got to go anyway.
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message
stormywaters
rare



Joined: 22 May 2011
Posts: 1392

usa.gif
PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 8:31 pm GMT    Post subject: Re: Can't we all just ge along? Reply with quote

Part 2:

J.T.Silversmith wrote:
You said,”They don't have to. They can kill you without it. Or turtle and push it to 8, where they suddenly win.” This one made me laugh, the turtling wizards suddenly push a magic terrain to an 8th face and win? How did they “suddenly” advance to an 8, by turning it backwards from a 1 to an 8? OK I had better be careful, that was an attempt at humor, and I genuinely laughed when I read that. I don’t mean this to sound like I am making fun of you. In the scenario I was trying to describe, what you were saying was impossible.


1. Turtle means all your units, not just half. Since the game only allows 50% mages, a "turtle" - by definition - isn't just mages.

2. I didn't say they suddenly turn it to 8, I said they push it to 8. That means having a full 36 point army pushing a terrain up each turn. In a couple of turns, it reaches 8, where that army wins, through insane amounts of magic.

3. Turtling to 8 is very clearly not what you'd do when you're already at a magic face. If you have magic, you don't need to move it; you've already gotten half the win. If all the terrains come up wrong, you move your entire army to the highest number and force that one to 8.

Quote:
Here is the set up I was talking about, Imagine the mid point of a two player game, you each have an 8th face on another terrain. The terrain we are talking about is at a 1, 2, or 3, the wizards have been doing magic, and now you need to capture the second terrain to win. In my hypothetical example, the magic army has to stay at this terrain, if they want to continue to cast spells, they can’t advance the terrain. If they want to win the game they have to stop doing magic and make a run for the 8. At best that is four turn of maneuvering and hoping you don’t get shot or blasted by his wizards, or caught by a melee army. Who is really going to let wizards run unopposed that long? Compare that to a missile army at one terrain advancing from where they are effective (i.e. at a 4, 5, or 6) to capture the terrain. At best that is two turns, with the same chances of getting attacked. Running and trying to keep an army alive for two turns is a lot more feasible. Compared to a melee army, going from the range they are effective to the range they can win the game is a whole lot easier, It could be as little as one turn, and they are at their most effective the whole way.


You're playing wrong then. Why would you have your mages at a 1/2/3 if you control an 8? Move your mages to the 8, summon all your kin, and move your other 18 points to the other terrain. Then your melee/cav army is protected with magic, augmented maneuvers with magic, and wins. Or you turtle the 8 and throw death at your opponent (since Lightning Strike, Finger of Death, etc don't worry about your opponent having an 8th). Or you Path to Victory.

Quote:
You said, “Magic doubling isn't needed to make mages strong. They are strong without it.” That is you opinion, this is mine, Mages were once powerful, but now they are just strong. If you take out doubling entirely without reducing basic spell costs, and re working 8th face effects, they will be weak, and the game will be less fun.


We won't know without testing.

Quote:
You said, ”My mages are: 2 Wolverine-Folk, 1x Death Mage, 3x Hedge Wizard, 5x Weasel-Folk, and I'm under Dancing Lights at a Swampland City. There are 3 health in one DUA. I roll for magic:

Wolverine: ID, Cantrip
Death Mage: 3 Magic
Hedge Wizard: ID, ID, Saves
Weasel: ID, 1 Magic, 2 Magic, Melee, Melee

How many magic of each type do I have? What are my options? How much is left after a Lightning Strike, or two Finger of Death? What if I want to resurrect my 3 in the DUA? What options exist there?

Yeah, it's not that simple. You don't just go "I've got 7 points of ID, so it's 14 points total. Now to spend that 14." It is immensely more complex than that. “
OK this one I admit I wasn’t thinking about, I always play single race, doubling is much harder this way. However I do maintain that no matter how long it takes to figure out how many magic points you have it still takes LONGER to decide how to SPEND them.


Emphasis mine.

It takes far longer to figure out how to spend them, IF you also have to account for doubling. Do I cast Finger of Death? How many IDs do I use for it? How does spending those IDs affect my other options? So on and so forth.

Quote:
I do however have a suggestion regarding this, though I have never play tested it because I never needed to. Perhaps we could alter the racial spell idea a bit, as long as you have one magic user of that race to teach the rest of the army, the entire group can cast those racial spells. That way you only need to remember what spell lists you can use, rather than separating results by race. So if you have goblin and feral wizards, you can spend gold points from either race’s dice to cast either race’s spells. I think it is intuitive enough, if you have feral and goblins, you can cast feral and goblin spells, It is also easy to verify if the casting army has one of that race of magic user. It also adds some tactics you can try against them, tired it the opponent backlashing you? Target out his feral wizards.


Sure, let's make mages more powerful. That seems like the direction we want to head. Mr. Green

Quote:
You said, “Archers at a Tower don't suddenly generate a bunch of extra results.” That is not completely true, said the amazons. It also used to be that cavalry units would generate a bunch more results on an 8th face with the charging rules, which I think did not needed to be removed.
You said,”One of these things is not like the others. Oh, it's that magic doubling doesn't require an 8th face, and none of that makes a more concentrated, potent force with fewer units.” It is not identical, no, doubling does not require an 8th face, and instead it requires a specific terrain type. Often that means there is only one of the three that is favorable, and then only if it can be turned to magic range. There are enough limitations that it seems roughly equivalent in my opinion.


Amazons are already in need of work, so I won't address them. Furthermore, it has nothing to do with a Tower.

Charging doesn't exist for a reason. It was broken, because of doubling. Magic doesn't require a certain terrain to double, it requires a certain color. Black can always be added, so black can always double. Gold, being the most prevalent, is usually represented. This is nothing close to being a valid argument, nor is it "roughly equivalent". Archery requires an archery face, and never doubles. Ditto for Melee.

Quote:
You said,”That's the balance you keep bringing up. They are balanced by not being able to kill things alone. They require a group of them, but with doubling they become increasingly more potent.” This is another semantics and opinions thing. A magic unit is not becoming stronger than it was in previous rules sets, if we keep the doubling rules; it is staying where it was. If we change the doubling rules they will not be balanced any more, and we would need to revise spell costs SAI’s and 8th face rules to regain it.


Magic isn't balanced, that's the point of this entire discussion. The limit on mages indicates this. The fact that everyone always plays mages (or is at a significant disadvantage) is more evidence.

Quote:
To sum up, in your opinion Magic is to strong, in my opinion magic could be stronger. So we compromise, Magic stays at the same power level. And we stop arguing about it and focus on making it as simple and playable as possible.


Except you have to provide valid evidence that magic is balanced, or that it can use a boost. It's not. Games are decided by number and quality of mages. If magic was balanced, we wouldn't have restrictions on it. We wouldn't see magic as ubiquitously as we do. We wouldn't even be having this discussion if there wasn't a strong, vocal force that thinks it's unbalanced.
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message
J.T.Silversmith
dragonfoal



Joined: 27 Nov 2006
Posts: 23
Location: California

usa.gif
PostPosted: Wed Mar 14, 2012 3:00 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

AC, You said, “The first increase in spell point costs was not in the release of 2.0; it was in Monsters & Amazons…and you could still Cantrip a Lightning Strike. “ Thank you for the correction, I was trying to simplify and generalize some things to show a general trend in magic reduction, and I was feeling too lazy to dig out all of my old rules cards to be more specific.

In regards to charging, perhaps it was a little too effective, but I think the idea was valid, just not the execution. I think it would have been better to rework the rules than remove it completely.

I did not think the routing rules worked very well either, they were not very intuitive, and I would keep forgetting about it, or how it was supposed to work. I did not remember how bad it affected the Coral Elves, still I would have preferred to see the idea kept, just improve the mechanics of it.

You said, “Elves produce magic at the exact same rate per die as Goblins and Dwarves, so I'm not sure where the argument that weakening magic weakened only elves originates.” I was stating that as my opinion, based on the first five races spell lists at the time. They did not generate any more results than anyone else, but the combination and power of the spells they could cast at the time was pretty good. If you got them on a coastland, hailstorm and lightning strike made for a powerful offense, wall of ice and watery double were potent defense, they could recover units well. As you said they could cantrip lightning bolts. Spell selection made them a potent force, and when magic was reduced through various rules sets their power was weakened.

You said, “That out of the way, it remains that opinions are not terribly relevant.” “Yup, in my opinion you are totally right.” All kidding aside, that is one of the points I was trying to make in my last post. Rather than argue about weather magic is to strong or to weak, let’s look at ways to make the process work better.

“If you need magic to consistently challenge for victory then there is a sharp restriction on army construction.” This is probably the best statement as to why magic might be too strong that I have seen so far.
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message
cliffwiggs
SFR Treasurer
Chief Wheedler
SDA - Rules NitPicker



Joined: 25 Jan 2005
Posts: 10763
Location: Cumming, GA - USA

usa.gif
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 7:04 am GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

J.T.Silversmith wrote:

“If you need magic to consistently challenge for victory then there is a sharp restriction on army construction.” This is probably the best statement as to why magic might be too strong that I have seen so far.
Magic is easy, but I have seen lots of players succeed consistently w/o it.

That being said, the average gamer is not going to dig deep enough to realize the depth. They will judge a game based on its surface. So, which type of player do you cater too? There are a lot more average people than more mature, but the more mature player buys more over the long term and the average player never moves past a few packs. but without new blood, you can't grow. so its a catch-22
_________________
Multiplayer Champion Gencon11/Battlefest Champion(tied) GenCon10/World Champion GenCon07/National Champion Origins05/Intermediate Champion GenCon02/Novice Champion Origins99
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message
DEEPBLUEB2
monster
Stockholder



Joined: 20 Nov 2005
Posts: 7865
Location: Des Plaines, IL

usa.gif
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 8:31 am GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
“If you need magic to consistently challenge for victory then there is a sharp restriction on army construction.” This is probably the best statement as to why magic might be too strong that I have seen so far.


Still on this anti-magic rampage?

Look...
most tournaments are timed...
there simply is not enough time to win every game by attrition,
even if that is your army's forte.

Magic is just fine as is.

DD is designed to have an ending... not an eternal war.
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
SpazzyP
dragonmount



Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Posts: 31
Location: Dickson TN

usa.gif
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 1:55 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jim Rayborn wrote:

Magic is just fine as is.

DD is designed to have an ending... not an eternal war.


Tell em' like it is Jim.
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message
stormywaters
rare



Joined: 22 May 2011
Posts: 1392

usa.gif
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 2:02 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

It remains as untrue now as when you first said it.
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message
DialFforFunky
rare



Joined: 11 May 2010
Posts: 1992
Location: Groningen

netherlands.gif
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 3:29 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jim Rayborn wrote:
Magic is just fine as is.


Save for some tiny individual changes here and there, I fully agree with this sentiment.


F
_________________
717
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message
AC
common



Joined: 26 Feb 2012
Posts: 317
Location: DC GMA

usa.gif
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 4:42 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

cliffwiggs wrote:
Magic is easy, but I have seen lots of players succeed consistently w/o it.

That being said, the average gamer is not going to dig deep enough to realize the depth. They will judge a game based on its surface. So, which type of player do you cater too? There are a lot more average people than more mature, but the more mature player buys more over the long term and the average player never moves past a few packs. but without new blood, you can't grow. so its a catch-22



Do we have an established player-neutral rate of success for magic-exclusive armies vs. magic-inclusive armies? Can this information be shared?

What measure defines a "mature player"? What percentage of the playerbase do they represent? I do not ask rhetorically, and I certainly do not mean this as an attack on Mr. Wiggs, whose efforts in the life of Dragon Diceâ„¢ cannot be overappreciated. I ask because if there are facts that support the high regard for the status quo, they are not in ready evidence, and it would be a matter of customer service to allay the concerns raised in this and other topics.

Please try to consider the overall exchange from the perspective of a reader who is not part of the inner circle. Many of the statements made in response to requests for proof boil down to, "Everything is fine. Trust me." (Though I quoted only Mr. Wiggs, I am referring here to the entire spectrum of response.) Perhaps the expectation is that the outsider is simply supposed to defer to the wisdom of the collective. In this regard, history is laden with awful precedent. In any event, it comes across as wrong-headed and condescending at best, and at worst as a curt "**** you. We hate change. Find another game." (Certain posters evoke this sentiment more sharply than others.)

Everything is fine. Trust me. does not satisfy. We are being asked to accept at face value a faith-based assessment of a mathematical system. I do not want this to devolve into a discussion of why logic is good. Instead, I propose that if all organs are functioning as intended an explanation should be easily at hand. Is magic balanced? Is it not intended to be balanced? Does its inclusion better or worsen the chances of achieving the desired style and pace of play? Has the ideal model for gameplay been realized and does it manifest with a high rate of precision? Should a dice game really end on account of eclipsing a preset time limit?

If all of this is mere trivia to the wise, please share, because it is not clear to those looking in.
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message
cliffwiggs
SFR Treasurer
Chief Wheedler
SDA - Rules NitPicker



Joined: 25 Jan 2005
Posts: 10763
Location: Cumming, GA - USA

usa.gif
PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2012 7:51 am GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

AC wrote:
do not mean this as an attack on Mr. Wiggs, whose efforts in the life of Dragon Diceâ„¢™ cannot be overappreciated.


No offense taken and you are asking all the right questions. My most recent post was meant to provoke thought into the complexity of the problem.

It was not meant as 'Everything's fine', but to make sure this doesn't' devolve into a discussion of absolutes. It is very possible to consistently win with no magic dice. It is also very easy to win with magic dice. It's not a black and white issue.

Also, there are at least two different classes of players, but trying to classify them is a subjective measure and I won't try. But they do desire different things that are non-intersecting.

This is a story repeated often in the history of the world. Youth vs age. Conservative vs Liberal. Left vs Right. Change vs Tradition. etc.

Finally, I wanted to provoke thought about attraction vs retention. What is required to attract a player can be counter productive to what is required to retain a player.

DragonDice has existed for many years via a 'cult' following that will always buy whatever comes out in the game they love... as long as it remains the game they love. There is a tipping point where they will just dump it all on Ebay. Thus we have endured by taking conservative stances and waiting out the months.

DragonDice (in the last 12 months) has started a resurgence of new players. Probably less than 1% of which are represented on this forum. Those players are of a completely different generation and what different things out of the games they play. A purely conservative stance will just lead to entropy. It won't lead to growth, so something must change, but not too much.

It's like a biological population. Get too small and it dies out. Get too large and it dies out.

So its a tricky balancing act. That's part of the reason I've been pushing for alternate ways to play. That concept has existed for ... as many years as the game has been out. But now it is even more important. You almost need two rulesets to appeal to the two different types of players. Thus the original push for DD Duels, which was a quick and fast game. This has evolved into Quests which is intented to be a more indepth RPG. On the other side is Campaigns, which Dan has been 'campaigning' for several years and appeals to a different style of play as well.

The 3.0 rules base is also meant to be a ... refactoring exercise (to steal a computer science term). Several things have been added and changed to the game since 2.0 and the world itself is different. The entire hobby game industry took a big dive and hasn't (or may never) come back to the same strength. ComicCon has been taken over by Hollywood and is now a common term. Settlers of Catan is sold in major retail stores and no longer has to be translated from German. The world is a different place...

If I can pull back the curtain a bit, there is a Smoke Filled Room where the very basic core of the entire game is being reviewed by shadowy figures in the gloom. That effort is going to take some time and has stalled a bit due to issues I won't explain.

Chuck and I are like contractors that are currently rewiring the kitchen lights and watching the clogged sink slowly back up. We can't lay down the live wires we are currently working on, but as soon as those tasks are complete. Either the sink will be replaced, or emptied with buckets, or the clog will be forcefully pushed out of the way.

I'm not saying 'just trust me and wait longer', but I am saying 'we hear and request patience'. These things take time and a rash decision could see the entire thing fall apart in less than a year (in which case no one else will ever read this). Personally, I hope this post will exist for another decade or more.
_________________
Multiplayer Champion Gencon11/Battlefest Champion(tied) GenCon10/World Champion GenCon07/National Champion Origins05/Intermediate Champion GenCon02/Novice Champion Origins99
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message
AC
common



Joined: 26 Feb 2012
Posts: 317
Location: DC GMA

usa.gif
PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2012 7:41 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

At risk of running this thread further off the rails . . .

I can certainly appreciate the attraction-retention tension; in fact it was the subject of one of my first posts here. This is why I have advocated making two distinct rulesets: a slim beginner's manual with a pared-down version of the game (particularly re: magic); and the more complex, full-bodied game we know and adore. The simple version draws people in -- and perhaps they love it that way and never use the rest -- while the full version opens the door for exploration and keeps them interested.

I am certainly not calling for a radical reinvention of the game, in case that's how it came across. It is in my interests as a player, however, to make sure that the full version is the best it can be. A lot of what has been bandied about in this 3.0 sub-forum is largely fluff -- nice, interesting, but hardly of urgent nature. There are also questions of significance that need to be addressed, and we ought not to risk losing them in the noise: Do the different races stack up fairly? Are there dice at risk of being considered "a waste" if rules (e.g. SAI's) are not revisited? Does the great hand of magic hinder free army construction?

I understand the outside factors at play. The hobby/home gaming model faces a Sysephean struggle in the style of market that predominates. Computer/video-games are the ascendant organism because they overcome gaming's basic hurdles: 1. They are flashy, colorful, and violent, to attract all the girls and boys. 2. They are straightforward and simple, repelling few. 3. Their consumers are willing to keep paying for something they already bought.

On magic, the chief concerns appear to pertain to its potential for occluding the influence of melee/missile/maneuver and its potential impact on the pace of play. If there is acknowledgement that these issues at least bear investigation, and correction if needed is on the table, it is a positive sign.
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message
DEEPBLUEB2
monster
Stockholder



Joined: 20 Nov 2005
Posts: 7865
Location: Des Plaines, IL

usa.gif
PostPosted: Sat Mar 17, 2012 9:19 am GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

Actually the thorn of magic is when spells replace rolls.

So path is cool...
you're just moving dice...
summon kin and dragons...
again...dice are put into play.

SAIs...
well that's part of rolls...not spells....

when we add wind walks...transmutes...hide,
flash floods...
dancing lights...
these are all adding to rolls...modifying rolls...
and now your rolls are no longer the main source of results...

Ken's army which won the worlds used heavy maneuvers and regeneration...
but to me it was really just heavy maneuvers and smites in a nut shell.

So that's an example of dice rolling to produce your results.
When players use magic to produce results,
DD becomes a different animal.
I started out like Ken...
I wanted to roll for my results... rather than get a bunch of cards and mark spells...
I wanted to play dice... not cards.

As time passed,
I found that spells were a great way to win...
but I still keep the dice roll as my backbone...
thus my game uses allot of what you would call gamble.

So I think player who don't like spells armies,
might want to go down that road...
for example...
I played a hide army,
and found,
although it was really an impenetrable strategy,
I just did not like that type of play,
remember, it's suppose to be fun...
so part of the fun is finding your own grove and making it work.

discussion of absolutes: Cliff's comment

So basically...
we have an army which rolls... and depends on actual icons for results...not spells...
we have an army which cast spells for their results... for their forte.

each one seems to be pointing fingers at each other,
that is the basis of complaints seems to be rooted in this debate.

The army which rolls for results is being attack with spells,
while the magic army is claiming that Ids opens the doorway to magic for non magic armies.


discussion of absolutes: so again...
I say magic is fine...
magic attempts to control the roll power...
while the roll power attempts to stop magic with pure results before magic gets a chance to start unleashing it's power.

So it's really a race to see who gets the upper hand first... rather that something is wrong with the game.

END
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
stormywaters
rare



Joined: 22 May 2011
Posts: 1392

usa.gif
PostPosted: Sat Mar 17, 2012 11:48 am GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jim Rayborn wrote:
Actually the thorn of magic is when spells replace rolls.


No. The thorn of magic is when it's nearly necessary for all games. The thorn of magic is when magic alone wins games left and right.

Quote:
So path is cool...
you're just moving dice...


No again. Path is not cool. Being able to move dice around is definitely cool. Being able to win a large percentage of games through Path to victory is decidedly not cool. If Path were changed in some fashion such that one cannot capture a terrain post-Path, then Path would be cool. As it is, Path is stupid and broken.

Quote:
summon kin and dragons...
again...dice are put into play.


No complaints here.

Quote:
when we add wind walks...transmutes...hide,
flash floods...
dancing lights...
these are all adding to rolls...modifying rolls...
and now your rolls are no longer the main source of results...


I don't see that any of these are broken, in and of themselves. Well, maybe Hide. Dancing Lights is unnecessarily confusing, through SAI rules and ID doubling, but a useful spell nonetheless.

Quote:
So I think player who don't like spells armies,
might want to go down that road...
for example...
I played a hide army,
and found,
although it was really an impenetrable strategy,
I just did not like that type of play,
remember, it's suppose to be fun...
so part of the fun is finding your own grove and making it work.


Playing armies because they are fun is all fine and dandy, but at a competitive level players aren't ignoring the best options because other options are "fun". Players serious about competition are going to play the best options all the time. Look at the Magic tournament rosters. A half dozen different decks? A dozen? Across hundreds of players?

You can't build a game with built-in imbalance, and say "Yeah, but players will always go the 'fun' route, so we don't need to worry about the broken stuff."

Quote:
So basically...
we have an army which rolls... and depends on actual icons for results...not spells...
we have an army which cast spells for their results... for their forte.

each one seems to be pointing fingers at each other,
that is the basis of complaints seems to be rooted in this debate.

The army which rolls for results is being attack with spells,
while the magic army is claiming that Ids opens the doorway to magic for non magic armies.


I have no idea what this section means. Nobody, literally nobody, is saying "Wahh! That guy rolled for saves against me and got some saves! That's unfair!" Sure, there are some rolls that are broken (Rend-spam, et al), but very few.

Quote:
discussion of absolutes: so again...
I say magic is fine...
magic attempts to control the roll power...
while the roll power attempts to stop magic with pure results before magic gets a chance to start unleashing it's power.

So it's really a race to see who gets the upper hand first... rather that something is wrong with the game.

END


Ugh. It's far beyond "attempts to control the roll power". Path to victory has nothing to do with "control the roll power". Nor does Lightning Strike. Nor Hide.

It's this: Magic is the most versatile, has unlimited reach of effect, has the most density of results per unit, creates all the effects that other dice can create and more, and wins games single-handed. It's not just people whining. Magic is broken.
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message
DialFforFunky
rare



Joined: 11 May 2010
Posts: 1992
Location: Groningen

netherlands.gif
PostPosted: Sat Mar 17, 2012 1:44 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

Stormy, I value your opinion as you seem like a nice and intelligent guy with original perspectives... but please... calm down a bit. Most of your recent debating posts read as if your mouth is foaming while typing, and I find them quite off-putting because of it. Sorry to be so blunt, but your post seem to become increasingly passionate and it's been bugging me for some time now. A few 'ifs', 'maybes' and 'I think thats' go a long way.

The only thing I would like to contribute to this discussion is that the game balance is not perfect at the moment. Nor should it be. It's the imbalance that strongly affects games and, perhaps more importantly, meta-games. Otherwise there wouldn't be a reason to pick one thing over anything else, other than simple subjective preference. There is, however, a rough balance in the imbalance. Magic has it's weaknesses, and these things that form the weaknesses are hardly unique or hard to put in a list. Sure, those list will lose to things as well. And those list in their place will lose to something. Perhaps magic. For the purposes of this game, I think this rough balance is more than enough.


F
_________________
717
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    SFR, Inc. Forum Index -> 3.01 and later Rules Discussion - Locked All times are GMT - 6 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Page 8 of 10

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group