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: Sat Mar 17, 2012 1:50 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fair enough. I just grow tired of hearing Jim repeat the same tired arguments time and time again, asserting them each time as if they're gospel facts, and ending his posts with "END" as if it somehow validates his post and invalidates all dissenting opinions.

It gets old, and I'm tired of rebutting them repeatedly, only to have him restate them and pretend they've always been true.
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message
dburkley
rare
Director



Joined: 29 Jun 2008
Posts: 1200
Location: Hillsborough, NJ

usa.gif
PostPosted: Sun Mar 18, 2012 9:47 am GMT    Post subject: Magic 3.0 Reply with quote

Jim Rayborn wrote:
I think player's ideas of control and limitation would better serve are game formats, rather than restructuring the entire realm of DD.

There are plenty of cool ideas, but I think game variation is really the home for these concepts.

I've had this opinion, myself, with different aspects of the rules that I thought could use some altering. I'll limit this to magic, since this is the topic of this thread.

For some formats or scenarios, I've experimented with using a subset of the spell list, or even "customized" the spell list to a format or scenario.

Similarly, I've experimented with modifiying some rules to change how they impact other game mechanics amd game strategy. One example is adding a step in the sequence of play called "Declaration of Marches", which forces the player to declare which armies will be activated.

This small, but subtle, change impacts the usefulness certains spells and strageties, such as Path. Path still has its uses, such as getting out of some danagerous situations, reinforcing another army, or creating a new army at a new location of interest - but if a new army was created, it could not be selected during the Second March for activation, since another army was already designated during the "Declaration of Marches" phase, and eliminates the "Path to Victory" and similar SAI-based strategies (although Path, Ferry, Teleport, and Wayfare could still be used to reinforce a "hidden" unit that was chosen for a Second March).

[Note: A number of players learning the game were surprised that it was possible to activate the same dice more than once during the turn, which Path and some SAIs allows as a possibility. Some of those players believe that any die should only be activated once. Adding the "Declaration of Marches" phase was one approach to explore that as a gaming option, but it is not the perfect solution - as SAIs could still generate situations where a die could be activated more than once during the turn.]
_________________
Daniel Burkley
US National Champion (DEXCON 2007, 2009, 2010)
World Champion (GENCON 2008, 2009, 2010, 2013, 2014)
Battlefest Champion: DEXCON 2008, 2011, GENCON 2009, 2010 (co-champion), 2011, 2017)
"No Magicians": GENCON 2008
"Single Race": DEXCON 2008, GENCON 2010, 2011, 2014 (co-champion), 2017
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
DEEPBLUEB2
monster
Stockholder



Joined: 20 Nov 2005
Posts: 7866
Location: Des Plaines, IL

usa.gif
PostPosted: Mon Mar 19, 2012 2:49 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's like the Boy who cried wolf..
I honestly can't even read the posts anymore.


Quote:
Fair enough. I just grow tired of hearing Jim repeat the same tired arguments time


Confused


END*


* play on End of Line from Tron....
Master Controller's tag line
also signifies my post is finished...or like in Dragon Dice™...your turn is over
See Done

and get me that Chinese language file I Requested.

End of Line

==============

plain and simple... work together.

what's with all this rebuttal??

I'm really surprised this behavior has continued.

I'm a team player,
so let's act like a team.
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
J.T.Silversmith
dragonfoal



Joined: 27 Nov 2006
Posts: 23
Location: California

usa.gif
PostPosted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 7:22 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here is a set of suggestions for magic that could be tried to simplify spellcasting and speeding up the magic action, without dramatically reducing the effectiveness of Magic, but still limiting the magic army to maintain some balance. This is just throwing ideas out, and my own opinions, but I will try to explain why I think things might work better.

1. Limit players to 1/3 of the total health for wizards.
2. Reduce the cost of some spells to 1 point of magic.
3. Any normal magic icon that matches a terrain color can be doubled.
4. The wizard army may cast racial spells from another race, as long as there is a unit of that race in that army to lead the other wizards.

Ok my reasoning behind point 1, it is simple for new players to figure out, tell them to build one Amy of wizards, one army of fighters, and a missile unit or another melee unit, each of equal health. It doesn’t really matter though if they put fighters in the “magic” army or a few magic units in the melee army; it should still be less than ˝ the total health worth of wizards, as the rules are currently. Just trying to streamline army building, and keep the magic haters from yelling too loudly.

I know there will be some who are looking at me crazily now, but in my opinion, this is one of the factors that make spending spell points so slow and painful for many players. When the minimum spell cost is two, then you are going to have to waste magic points if you don’t spend them carefully. They become a precious commodity, and as I believe JBGames said it is against human nature to like waste.
That is why the last 2 or 3 points of magic are always hard to spend; you have to be careful with your precious points, so you don’t waste them. So give players spells that only cost one point. That way there is something to spend magic on. If spells can be cheap and plentiful, magic is not as precious, and we may see faster magic actions.
At a 2 point cost to a 1 point of effect, hailstorm is currently almost useless, and I don’t think I have seen it used effectively in years. But if it is a 1 to 1 magic to damage conversion, it is worth something again. It doesn’t have to be that spell and ones like it, just do something to make magic seem less wasteful.

For point three, magic doubling for magic icons only seems to me to be the simplest way to limit doubling to magic users, you don’t have to check whether the opponents ID is a magic user or not. You don’t need to separate units by race or anything, you simply see a magic icon, and if it matches the terrain color you double it. If it is a cantrip you don’t, ID icons don’t. (Though there could be some discussion here, Cantrip counts as normal magic during a magic action, so doubling it when using magic normally, and not doubling it as a SAI when used in melee or missile.)

This logic carries over to point four, in multiracial armies, you count up magic points, and double what you can, add ID icons, and then look at what spells you can cast. If toy have a Treefolk and Scalder army, you could spend the all green points (regardless of the racial origin of the magic points,) on any basic treefolk or scalder spell.

The other thing I have started doing a few months ago, was I printed up a reference sheet for each race. It has the IDs, SAIs, racial abilities, and a list of the spells that race could cast. For Lava Elves it has the basic red, and black spells, and the Lava Elf racial spells. Before that I just had couple of comprehensive spell lists to share. I just pulled it out of the current rules PDF. Currently it is six pages long. On each racial page with a little compressing, I got all the races except amazons and acolytes of the Eldarim down to ONE page. Every player I asked new and old said that the individual spell lists were much less intimidating than the full list. Every one I talked to about it thought it was easier do deal with. We could reduce the complexity of the spell list by one sixth, just by encouraging new players to use a single race of wizards whenever possible, and providing better reference material.
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message
stormywaters
rare



Joined: 22 May 2011
Posts: 1392

usa.gif
PostPosted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 8:19 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

J.T.Silversmith wrote:
Here is a set of suggestions for magic that could be tried to simplify spellcasting and speeding up the magic action, without dramatically reducing the effectiveness of Magic, but still limiting the magic army to maintain some balance. This is just throwing ideas out, and my own opinions, but I will try to explain why I think things might work better.

1. Limit players to 1/3 of the total health for wizards.

Ok my reasoning behind point 1, it is simple for new players to figure out, tell them to build one Amy of wizards, one army of fighters, and a missile unit or another melee unit, each of equal health. It doesn’t really matter though if they put fighters in the “magic” army or a few magic units in the melee army; it should still be less than ˝ the total health worth of wizards, as the rules are currently. Just trying to streamline army building, and keep the magic haters from yelling too loudly.


I adamantly disagree. I already dislike the fact that there are restrictions on army construction. Limits on possibilities are painful and bad. There are no other restrictions on race or "class", and I'd like to see this one go.

Quote:
2. Reduce the cost of some spells to 1 point of magic.


I'm on board, but we have to make sure we're careful with this.

Quote:
3. Any normal magic icon that matches a terrain color can be doubled.


As a corollary to the first point, this is unacceptable. Magic doesn't need to be shrunk in number, condensed and concentrated further. You're not balancing anything by increasing the amount of magic and decreasing the number of mages. This same rule is not applied to anything else, so why is magic considered special in this regard?

Quote:
4. The wizard army may cast racial spells from another race, as long as there is a unit of that race in that army to lead the other wizards.

This logic carries over to point four, in multiracial armies, you count up magic points, and double what you can, add ID icons, and then look at what spells you can cast. If toy have a Treefolk and Scalder army, you could spend the all green points (regardless of the racial origin of the magic points,) on any basic treefolk or scalder spell.


I don't know how I feel about this. It certainly simplifies things, but it means I can run a host of mages (say a bunch of Sunflares) with a single common mage from three other races and have access to four spell lists in full complement. This is a bad idea. Undead run a single Goblin and now have access to Spirit Furnace? Yikes.
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 22, 2012 7:33 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

Item 1 really gets at the core of the issue. I don't mean to just naysay, but I also am not a fan of the 1/3 limitation. The ideal for the purposes of simplification and variety aligns with stormywaters' aim: construction without restriction. Magic's strength is that it does "a little of everything." Ensuring that this included "but not a lot of anything" would probably be sufficient to bring it more in line with other icons, such that there would not be an inherent advantage in having more mages than one's opponent. What we must determine, however, is: Does weakening magic to remove restrictions necessitate watering down magic to the point that it is no longer viable except when supported by large numbers of committed troops? That is: Can we take it down enough to make all icon types competitive? Truth be told, I don't think we're that far off. A few tweaks to the spell list, cost, and point generation should be sufficient.

There is also a more prosaic -- and sad -- reason for opposing such a measure: People are bad at math. That army values be evenly divisible by 3 is a recommendation of the rules, not a requirement. Any point total is acceptable, and asking everyone to figure out "no more than one third" is putting another hurdle before a certain portion of the base. I don't like the idea of designing for the dimmest x% of the players, but it has to be done to an extent. The reason the rulebook is so long is not just because there's a lot of reference items; it's because every item has to be explained backward and forward. If there's any gray area, someone's going to exploit it and someone's going to be confused by it. The cheater and the doofus bring society down.

Item 2 is certainly viable if we reduce the amount of magic generated by a given magic action or weaken the spells. Bear in mind that by changing a 2 point spell to a 1 point spell, you are doubling its impact. There were 1 point spells in 1.0; they were all changed to 2 points. Say your Corals at the Coast come up with 14 magic (pretty easy to do). A 7-point attack anywhere on the battlefield may in theory be easy to withstand, but a 14-point barrage is pretty brutal. You run into the risk of having magic wipe out armies at any distance -- something we're already trying to reduce.

Item 4 is a wonderful notion for the purposes of simplifying spell selection, but stormywaters has pointed out the potential nightmare scenario that could result. It's just too open. I understand that racial spells are important for balancing power, so any rethinking of how they are used has to be careful. Nothing that's neither overly complicated nor prone to abuse occurs to me at the moment, but it's an avenue worth exploring.

Let's back up a step, though. I glossed over something that's sort of essential to this discussion. Is there agreement that our objective is to make it so there are no restrictions on magic in army construction? (In that vein: Are we trying to make magic, melee, and missile relative equals?)
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: Fri Apr 06, 2012 5:28 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

I did get a chance to play a multi-race wizard army last week, and tried out some things, and realized that the magic simplification wasn't working quite the way I had intended. AC you are right, just having a wizard of that type should not be enough. What I think is better is that you could cast the spells of any race that rolled magic on that turn. That way just including a single goblin would not really be practical or reliable. but an army with two races would be pretty reliable, and still keep things just as simple.
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message
eggsaladsandwich
uncommon



Joined: 31 Jan 2005
Posts: 516
Location: West Linn, OR.

usa.gif
PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2012 12:08 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

How about if you can only cast Friendly magic (same as reserves) when you are at a terrain showing a magic face.
This would have many benefits to gameplay:
1: it would disuade players from sitting on the lower faces and maging each other to death.
2: it would promote the use of minor terrains because if you rolled magic on one while you were at a terrain with missile or melee, you could then throw out offensive spells.
3: it would tone down the mages power a bit.

just another idea...
_________________
"Another days useless energy spent." Moody Blues
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message
DialFforFunky
rare



Joined: 11 May 2010
Posts: 1992
Location: Groningen

netherlands.gif
PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2012 1:23 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oddly enough, I think dragons are a prime reason why magic is so very powerful. To me, they are the endgame pieces that are available before the endgame. They are not that hard to summon and put a considerable amount of damage-dealing magic in the hands of any mage. It shifts the role of mages from supportive to offensive.
Now, of course, cutting the dragons out of a game called Dragon Dice™ would not be a valid option. One idea I had was to make dragons only summonable to from and to 8th faces, and perhaps to 1st faces as well. Another option would be to include some sort of preparation for summoning a dragon, like activating them before being able to summon them to a terrain.


F
_________________
717
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message
Skawilly
rare
SDA - Rules NitPicker



Joined: 21 Mar 2011
Posts: 1308
Location: Beaverton, OR

usa.gif
PostPosted: Sat May 12, 2012 7:34 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

I guess I gave up on the idea of nerfing mages. I am more in the market of beefing melee/ranged. The wording of stuff is outta control I do know that much though.

I am fully on board that the game is not balanced. And Stormy is correct that the simple fact that there is a arbitrary cap on mages proves this. Doubling should just go. This is at most though the ONLY nerf I really can advocate for.

After playing with SAI's, path is not all mighty, though as far as terrain hopping goes it definitely is king, I wont argue. However, its not really something that needs ridding. I feel another color of terrain hopping could be made to counter this though. Green would be a good filler, its currently the weakest color next to gold, which is nessasary for path.
_________________
Will
"There is more philosophy in a bottle of wine than all the books in all the world" - Some random wine cap -
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message
DEEPBLUEB2
monster
Stockholder



Joined: 20 Nov 2005
Posts: 7866
Location: Des Plaines, IL

usa.gif
PostPosted: Sun May 13, 2012 12:15 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Doubling should just go.


from my experience in casting spells...
very few spells benefit from doubling anyways...
I had 40 red once and could do nothing.

So the idea that magic is too strong to me is says someone lost a game from too many wind walks or too many transmutes...
this is going to happen no matter what kind of cap fabricated.

Basically... I think Magic is too weak if anything.

FOd is strong but it cost extra...
LS is deadly...but on the average about 50% accurate...

so what's the deal?
what is too powerful?

I just see allot of dial down theories, but none really have anything other than a complaint...

examples please instead of taking sides.
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Skawilly
rare
SDA - Rules NitPicker



Joined: 21 Mar 2011
Posts: 1308
Location: Beaverton, OR

usa.gif
PostPosted: Sun May 13, 2012 12:55 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am not randomly taking sides and spitting out information.

Quote:
I had 40 red once and could do nothing.


Depends on your race. Dwarves or Scalder I imagine. Either way, 2 dragons an 13 ash storms, whatever. to say, "Whelp magic is excess" is a shallow argument. You might say, well dragons already out. Blah blah blah. And this happens to everyone once in a long while anyway, where you have a great deal of excess magic. But its a corner case as usual.

Your right though. Magic is weak. I will just play a game with no mages and Ill be fine. In fact, lets lift the 50% cap on them. I like your thinking.

Sorry man, Mages are not only strong, they run the game. There is no one example why. Its their diversity. Thats a bait from you to pull your crazy scenarios on people.
I am not entirely for nerfing them. But to say they are not top dog is just weird. Like you've played 4 games or something.

Doubling is a little off. I think a reverse would be better. Something like frostwing/amazon face ids wont work unless at a stones or what not. I dunno. I am not really play testing this aspect of the game at the moment, its clearly not going to change. The rule its self causes issues with modifiers. No one can even see the color of the terrain dice to begin with while doubling which is another issue when teaching someone beyond the demo mats.

This is my only bite on your question. And its sorely incomplete.

They are better than 'Surgical Missile strikes' for hitting an 8th face. DD is amazing in that, its gaurunteed to target vs hoping for bulls eyes. Path, again is gaurunteed vs ferry or any other terrain hopping. Ressing is more of a sure thing than Gold medal/troll by a long shot. Terrain manipulation, aside from racial abilities to root/be quick almost definitely comes from magic and even still the abilities are far better. (Flash flood/tidal wave/Wind walks, Volcanic eruption/ Night moves/Transmute, probably missing a couple).
Most important, magic is open to all of this at one time, where as other wise, usually, you get to do 1 or the other.

And to say "Well, you're only mad because you lost to an array of ww's/transmutes" is a cop out argument. We all have and its not a corner case at all its happened MANY times. I am NOT addressing this as a problem. I am addressing how unfair your statement is. That scenario alone is enough to consider a change or at the very least frustrate people. You should not preemptively make that argument look like only a child would say that when some maybe truly concerned. And to talk down to folk who have this issue... well ill maintain what little professionalism I have left at this point.

I like the magic system as is. I dont like doubling primarily on the distribution confusions. But it could be toned down a bit.
_________________
Will
"There is more philosophy in a bottle of wine than all the books in all the world" - Some random wine cap -
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message
eggsaladsandwich
uncommon



Joined: 31 Jan 2005
Posts: 516
Location: West Linn, OR.

usa.gif
PostPosted: Sun May 13, 2012 4:58 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

1. Remove Doubling
2. Remove mage health restriction
3. Mages may only cast "Offensive" magic when at an 8th face OR when in control af a minor terrain showing magic or ID face.

This will:
1. Simplifiy army build proceedure
2. Simplifiy amount of magic calculation
3. See more minors being brought into play

P.S. by "Offensive" i mean they can cast spells they would not be able to from reserves.
_________________
"Another days useless energy spent." Moody Blues
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message
One That Was
dragonmount



Joined: 26 Apr 2012
Posts: 25

usa.gif
PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2012 2:10 am GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

eggsaladsandwich wrote:
1. Remove Doubling
2. Remove mage health restriction
3. Mages may only cast "Offensive" magic when at an 8th face OR when in control af a minor terrain showing magic or ID face.

This will:
1. Simplifiy army build proceedure
2. Simplifiy amount of magic calculation
3. See more minors being brought into play

P.S. by "Offensive" i mean they can cast spells they would not be able to from reserves.


I just want to toss my two cents in here and this seems like an oportune time to do so. Lets just say up front that I respectfully disagree with everything except the idea of the minor terrain idea...mostly because anything that promotes the use of a die that does not see much use...well, I like it. Anyway, on to my perspectives on the matter.

1) Doubling Faces.

If you remove doubling faces, it creates two scenarios as I see it (And I want to do some play testing to see how it shakes out and see if I am correct mind you). First, you make magic using units extremely powerful with the rules as is. Second, you make Magic users extremely vulnerable.

Magic using units are not made to handle situations where they take full on aggro, which is why it is usually a good idea to take out magic users as early and as much as you can, so you don't end up on the recieving end of a magic assault or some nasty trick. Without the doubling of faces, no one will rely on their non-magic using units to help out in a magic action, even in a pinch (Where as now, if you are desperate, you can in fact roll your archers for magic in case you need it). There just isn't enough likelyhood of getting any good out of it (16% chance for 6 siders, less for 10 siders...not that great a chance for too little effect if doubled magic is tossed).

SO, if you are relying only on your magic users in a magic action, then you are essentially making a big red target for your opponent, and it comes down to who has the better chances of rolling for melee or missiles...or even manuevers against the magic users. You make glass cannons effectively...really powerful, but too vulnerable to make much use of if your opponent just smashes them every time (Which is a trend already in place, but mitigated by the fact that any unit can double magic on their face, making a normal unit useful for magic if your opponent is bashing your magic users). Over time, people may just stop using Magic users all together, since they become so ultra vulnerable, and then DD loses the use of a full grouping of dice...not good for the game in general.

Granted, that is a bit extreme of a possibility, but it is possible.

2) Remove Mage health restriction

All well and good, but then you have the reverse problem of the previous idea: Why would I bother to bring so many smashy guys to the table when I can just play dwarf, feral, or treefolk magic users with the entirety of my army? Sure, I may (MAY) need to bring some manuevery guys. But not very many. Path for the win.

Although summoning dragons does give pause to such a decision in army construction, it really amounts to who gets to their magic face first...then I have a huge magic pool, summon every dragon I can, and move on to other magicky things with my tons of magic. The restriction is in place to prevent people from abusing the power of magic as is...releasing the restriction unbalances the game in favor of the gold magic users especially. Like, alot.

3) restricting usage of "offensive" magic.

This one I don't see too many problems with personally, because really it just delays the usage of ultra magic and makes it important to protect magic users until the 8th face comes about (or until you're lucky enough to have the magic or 8th face on a minor terrain pop up). It makes the game need to be played more strategically, while not really doing alot of gimping or unbalancing of magic users inherently. AND, it gives an added bonus of making a dice that doesn't always see action the possibility of seeing more action.

However, I can see this as being problematic too, because it does give rise to armies not bothering with magic users (Since they don't become useful until the 8th face hits) and just going the route of pure melee/archery/manuevery goodness. So there is a risk of making the magic dice less appealing and ultimately obsolete (And thereby running the risk of making the dragons themselves less common and, again, obsolete. Not good for a game based around dragons).

~~~~

All in all, my opinion is that changing the structure of magic already in place, while potentially appealing, has an equal amount or more pitfalls than leaving it as is. Any changes to the way magic is structured in DD needs to be very minor and subtle, if done at all.

NOT so for the spells themselves. Magic is primarily problematic because of the spells, not because of the structure. increasing the cost of some, possibly balancing the spell lists to make the different colors of magic more even footing with something as ungodly broken as TRtM, and taking a hard look at the actual magic using dynamics of the dice for each race and the spell availability for the race using magic, that will go further I think in regards to actually making Magic more balanced.

But that's just my two cents for now.
_________________
Raven's Hollow
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message
Skawilly
rare
SDA - Rules NitPicker



Joined: 21 Mar 2011
Posts: 1308
Location: Beaverton, OR

usa.gif
PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2012 5:04 am GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
(16% chance for 6 siders, less for 10 siders...not that great a chance for too little effect if doubled magic is tossed).


This is your strongest point in my opinion. Its a big deal in fact. Yes, doubling allows other classes to take SOME kind of alt action outside of their major action. Removing doubling would hurt this very much.

However, Mages are already targets with or with out changes. But to say they are defenseless is not really true more or less. They have a secondary icon distro like every other class does and it is what it is. Firewalker mages are quick, Undead mages are brutal Feral mages save, and thats just the way of things. Your argument of being a class cannon is nothing short of saying the same thing about the ranged class. In fact range tend to pack even less saves/melee than mages.

Unfortunately though, without hurting everything, magic has to stay as it is unless someone gets a genius in the next of months. I would love to see magic balance with the other classes. But its more difficult than possible I fear.
Magic is so very dominating though and its truly annoying. There has got to be a way to make things more even.

My goal with the minor terrains, and the rerolling of disasters, was simply to give more power to the other classes. Charge is a step in the right direction. I have very strong feelings that the balancing of the classes is not going to come from nerfing mages but from beefing the others.

EDIT: I just wanted to clarify that I did not mean the other classes need more damage. I was referring to more diversity. Magic is great primarily for this reason. Its does things more consistently than the equivalent SAI's do (Maybe not quite as powerfully) but can do the job of MANY SAI's. I also would like to campaign for more multipurpose SAI's. Take counter. Yes it works in a save or melee roll. But really, its a melee icon. Same with trumpet or even charge. I am thinking more like Wave or Teleport/Firewalking. They do such diverse things. I think with the army buff ones, which are great, and more diverse SAI's will give a little more power in the other classes.

However, it still wont be as consistent as magic. But it will encourage more splitting of the armies and such (Less turtling). Possibly able to compete on some level without bringing a mage class at all from time to time.

At my meet up just yesterday, just for fun, I brought a calv/heavy melee army. It was fun as heck when I tore into people. But come end game, I had no chance of winning. Though certainly I was the driving force for more of the major maneuver changes in the game. Still, all the other players had to do was drop the 8th face idea, res from reserves, come out and just cast on me. Avoid me after that. I did bring SS's for a self ressing army, which is REQUIRED if you dont have magic. Either that or a Gold Medal/Troll/Kings die.
_________________
Will
"There is more philosophy in a bottle of wine than all the books in all the world" - Some random wine cap -
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message
eggsaladsandwich
uncommon



Joined: 31 Jan 2005
Posts: 516
Location: West Linn, OR.

usa.gif
PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2012 6:11 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

Those suggestions where just in the interest of making the game more streamlined and intuitive. No game will ever be perfect, but the more easy we can make this game while keeping it stategically challenging will help in its continued success.... Cool

The goal as I see it is to make the game intuitive enough to play at the local coffee shop with just a couple of game "aides". And also to make sure that ALL the production dice have a relatively even chance of seeing play...all this while maintaining a sense of being able to strategically influence the outcome of any game with the decisions you make when building your armies...thats the whole idea in a nutshell, am I wrong? Question
_________________
"Another days useless energy spent." Moody Blues
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message
Skawilly
rare
SDA - Rules NitPicker



Joined: 21 Mar 2011
Posts: 1308
Location: Beaverton, OR

usa.gif
PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2012 8:17 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The goal as I see it is to make the game intuitive enough to play at the local coffee shop with just a couple of game "aides".


HERE HERE BROTHA!!!
_________________
Will
"There is more philosophy in a bottle of wine than all the books in all the world" - Some random wine cap -
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message
stormywaters
rare



Joined: 22 May 2011
Posts: 1392

usa.gif
PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2012 8:31 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

Skawilly wrote:
Quote:
The goal as I see it is to make the game intuitive enough to play at the local coffee shop with just a couple of game "aides".


HERE HERE BROTHA!!!


Hear* hear* Mr. Green

Yes, you are exactly right. As it stands, anyone not playing mages (or Feral) is at a distinct disadvantage. Jim Rayborn will be happy to outline some Rube Goldberg "solutions" to this, but ultimately that's how the game works.

This is what I want addressed. I want to be able to build a melee army, a missile army, and a magic army, without restrictions, and have them be roughly equivalent in terms of power. The game is nothing like that at the moment, as evidenced by the cap on mages.
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message
One That Was
dragonmount



Joined: 26 Apr 2012
Posts: 25

usa.gif
PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2012 1:52 am GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Unfortunately though, without hurting everything, magic has to stay as it is unless someone gets a genius in the next of months. I would love to see magic balance with the other classes. But its more difficult than possible I fear.
Magic is so very dominating though and its truly annoying. There has got to be a way to make things more even.

My goal with the minor terrains, and the rerolling of disasters, was simply to give more power to the other classes. Charge is a step in the right direction. I have very strong feelings that the balancing of the classes is not going to come from nerfing mages but from beefing the others.


As I said, Magic can't really be tweaked in the system itself without really unbalancing the game, or drastically changing the way the game is played in such a way that some consequence occurs, whether it be making magic more powerful inadvertantly, making magic useless inadvertantly, or making the game so different that players become displeased in new and exciting ways (Which is not the goal, and is ultimately bad for the game itself when things get shaken up too much). Maybe a bit extreme, but the point is that the consequences are still too high to make changing the *system* a worthwhile effort.

HOWEVER, I still believe that changing the spells themselves is the better and best way to go. It would be alot less wave-makey to say Transmute Rock to Mud should only give a negative 5 Manuevers, or make it one point of magic more expensive, and the problem comes quite a bit closer to being resolved. It is also much easier to make generic spells for the different colors of magic that are more balanced with eachother, or and find Race Niche and Element Niche spells that, while not balanced with EACH OTHER, are alot more in line in terms of power than what is currently present.

In short, The system itself is not necessarily broken, but the spells themselves may be.

On the other hand, in terms of balancing out melee and archers more with magic users, well that becomes a matter of working with SAI's, as you said....but again, tinkering with the system can have unexpected and potentially bad results. I agree that Magic is the end game all too often, and that Melee and Archery (Especially Archers) get the short end of the schtick. But again, the unbalanced power of the spells themselves may be the problem, not the system.

Consider this: If you increased every spell in the game by two points, how will that balance out Magic users? How about by one point? Three? Play test it and see how it balances out, and you may find that doing that increase changes the game considerably, without making magic obsolete or unbalanced in either direction.

Or maybe bring back Charge. Charge is a game winner....but it is also a tough option, because if it fails, it can break you.

Now, as for the Minor Terrains, again, maybe changing the system in place for the Major Terrains to make Minor Terrains more appealing may be the wrong direction. Perhaps it could be simply making a tweak to the way the Minor Terrains are used....nothing too significant.

For instance, instead of having Minor Terrains roll automatically at the start of the turn, instead make them stick to the result they roll when they come into play. Then make it so that you can opt to manuever the face, or reroll the Minor Terrain.

This makes Minor Terrains more appealing simply because when you bring in a Minor Terrain, you do so in the hopes of getting a result that is useful for your army. So why make it so short lived when you do get the result you need or want, or so unappealing by making it so that when you reroll the dice you might get a result useless for you.

If you simply made that small change, you make Minor Terrains more appealing: You reroll it if the result isn't useful to you, but when you get what you want you keep it until...well, until you win the terrain or your opponent grinds you to dust. Or some other similar situation. There is still the chance that when you reroll the minor terrain, you could get something bad, but it is going to make Minor Terrains more useful.

so, just some extra thoughts.
_________________
Raven's Hollow
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message
Skawilly
rare
SDA - Rules NitPicker



Joined: 21 Mar 2011
Posts: 1308
Location: Beaverton, OR

usa.gif
PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2012 1:59 am GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

The only non random dice should be major terrains. The kings die is still in the works for a fix but other that that leaving a minor as is is simply against the spirit of things.
_________________
Will
"There is more philosophy in a bottle of wine than all the books in all the world" - Some random wine cap -
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 9 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