The Book of Spell Rules

[A3n]

Aren't we just saying it's a knowledge/recall thing. Not all casters know all spells & not all can remember the perfect spell to cast in a time of crisis (or when under the pressure of battle)?

[Viegon]

I feel like you get themey weirdness either way. If I draft CBoC and stick it on Scarlet Witch, why shouldn't Doctor Strange be able to cast it later? A shared pool is actually closer on theme to represent that they all have access to those spells, with the uniqueness cap just being mechanical.

I mean, most comic spellcasters don't "bring" or "prepare" spells, so the fact that the spells have to be drafted in the first place is a theme break. In other words, it's a game, not a simulation.

But for mechanical, simplicity, and army build reasons, I prefer the current version.

[Tornado]

I guess that is where I am at also.

As a champion of theme I do agree that attaching the spells to a caster feels closer on theme but I like the idea of the MD figures joining forces through spell synergy, that feels very theme-y as well. The sharing of knowledge when the need arises.

I would be most interested in what the spell testers feel here.
Would that be a good restriction or more of a hamstring-ing?

[Ronin]

I don't see the spell pool as being any stranger or more unthematic a game abstraction than, say, Order Markers are. There's definitely room to argue the mechanics/balance of the system, but I'm not really buying any kind of big shift on thematic grounds.

Having to tie the spells to specific casters would definitely have an impact on Daimon and Kristoff and the way they were tested. If we only made that change to Unique Spells and kept the Commons pooled, that impact on Daimon and the Hellfire spells would go away, and the impact on Kristoff would be more negligible.

[dok]

Yeah, I think attaching unique spells to specific cards may be a reasonable compromise. Ultimately the goal is to provide a flexible design space. And since [one of] my complaint[s] was that we were "commonizing" unique spells, limiting the shared pool to common spells does resolve that. It means we can design powerful unique spells without worrying about them being potentially crazy in multi-spellcaster armies, but still allows shared common spells for synergy stuff. I'd still have some personal thematic hangups, but I'd get over it.

[Tornado]

That sounds reasonable.

Love to hear from more spell testers.

[Ronin]

Originally Posted by dok

Yeah, I think attaching unique spells to specific cards may be a reasonable compromise. Ultimately the goal is to provide a flexible design space. And since [one of] my complaint[s] was that we were "commonizing" unique spells, limiting the shared pool to common spells does resolve that. It means we can design powerful unique spells without worrying about them being potentially crazy in multi-spellcaster armies, but still allows shared common spells for synergy stuff. I'd still have some personal thematic hangups, but I'd get over it.

Bumping this for resolution, since it potentially impacts stuff in the Danger Room right now. Is this a change we want to make? Keep in mind that this suggestion isn't based on the spells so far being broken-good or anything, so much as it's about trying to make sure the design space stays healthy moving forward.

Fwiw, I was thinking you might be able to reduce some of the "commonization" threat on the Crimson Bands by requiring the caster to remove an unrevealed OM from their card to cast the spell. Going that route instead of doing anything with the spell pool would set precedent that high-end spells have to do their own work to keep themselves under control.

[Viegon]

I still prefer the current version, but I won't stand in the way of people making changes if that's what the majority wants.

[Yodaking]

Prefer to leave things as they are.

[dok]

Can we get more than just a couple responses here?

To review, I am in favor of attaching all spells to individual cards. My main motivations there were:

1. It is just as simple as the other approach; arguably more simple.
2. It hews much closer to the standard norms of Heroscape.
3. Thematically I struggle to justify why a bunch of figures are sharing the (expendable, temporary) ability to cast a spell. I was not alone in this.
4. There are serious gameplay and balance issues that can come out of "commonizing" a unique spell by allowing it to be cast by multiple figures in multiple positions on the map. It reduces the risk of buying a high-cost spell and it multiplies the threat that spell presents before it is cast.
5. Related to the above point, giving all future spells the ability to spread out over multiple casters restricts the future design space, making it harder to balance situationally powerful spells.

Limiting the change to unique spells was a compromise position, and one that seemed to have fairly broad support.

I really think we should try to be conservative in setting up these rules. Even more than the E-glyph or other rules that C3G has introduced, this is a serious alteration to gameplay, and we should be aiming for a light touch. Spells should be a cool add-on, and a big part of future magic figures, but they shouldn't be the gate to minmaxing or something you need to have in the bag in a competitive army.

[Tornado]

Certainly not against attaching Uniques.

Though I think we can simply add that restriction to individual spells as deemed needed.

[japes]

I was initially in favor of attaching spells to specific cards similar to the way Batman Utility Glyphs work. You don't just choose a pool of Bat Belt Glyphs and share them among all the figures with Utility Belt powers. I'm still in favor of that and would even be willing to settle for just the Unique Spells having to be pinned to certain cards and allowing the Common Spells (which are more generic anyway) to be free floating. It also give us an opportunity to have Uncommon spells...which could work as Unique spells but you could draft multiples and just pin them to separate cards.

Unique Spells - one card per army attached to one figure (once per game Level of Spells)
Uncommon Spells - Multiple per army but only one per figure (Once per Figure Level of Spells)
Common Spells - Multiple per army not attached to any figures. (Go Nuts Spells, fill your point total)