Mage specific cards in future expansions?

[Koz]

Is there any thought from the design team as to whether or not there are plans to include more mage specific cards for existing mages in future expansions?  For example, will we ever see any more Wizard specific cards, or perhaps a familiar for the Warlock?  Or is what we got in the core set all that will ever be for these mages?

Personally, I hope we see more mage specific cards for existing mages in the future.  I really, really want that Warlock familiar  

[Nihilistiskism]

What I'd really rather see is more generic cards with either extra benefits for certain mages, or, conversely, penalties for certain mages.

Example:

Familiar
1 channeling
2 armor
9 health
If your mage is schooled in Dark Magic, Familiar gains Channeling +1

etc.

When cards are only usable by Mage X it limits spellbook construction creativity. I understand the limitations, both from a design perspective and a thematic perspective, but I've always felt like outright dissallowance is not a good method of design. Choices breed creativity and interest. This game already has plenty of Mage X only cards.

-nihil

[Drealin]

I would have to agree with Nihil on this.  What your mage is skilled in already stops people from normally wanting to put certain cards in their deck.  For example a Priestess wouldn't normally want to include dark spells, especially higher level ones, but if someone really wanted to use up their points on the demonic gate for the Priestess, they should be allowed to try a more evil Priestess.
I also like the thought of having bonuses or drawbacks for spells based on what mage is casting them.  But again I think the fact that you have to pay so much extra for spells that you aren't skilled in makes sense, and should be the only real reason that you wouldn't include a particular spell.

[Shad0w]

Yes i can say we are working on mage, class, and school cards.

[Koz]

I agree that Nihil's suggestion is superior to cards that can only be used by one particular mage.  But, it looks like they have started down that route, so I am assuming it will continue.  I don't have a huge issue with the way they've done it really, although Nihil's suggestion is superior.  They could always do both I suppose.

[Gewar]

When cards are only usable by Mage X it limits spellbook construction creativity. I understand the limitations, both from a design perspective and a thematic perspective, but I've always felt like outright dissallowance is not a good method of design. Choices breed creativity and interest. This game already has plenty of Mage X only cards.

-nihil

I have to disagree with you. Mage only spells limit creativity, but there are only few of such spells and I think it is great. It is like giving each mage some optional unique abilities - similar to leveling in RPGs.

Your suggestion is ok (I am not crazy about it and I would be perfectly fine if it would be never included in Mage Wars), but as an addition to current system.
I would even dare to say, something like that is already in game - think of Ring of Curses - instead of it, we could have "this spell costs 1 mana less if you are playing Warlock" on every curse spell. I like Ring of Curses more, because it is optional, thematic and it is clearer solution.

[Nihilistiskism]

When cards are only usable by Mage X it limits spellbook construction creativity. I understand the limitations, both from a design perspective and a thematic perspective, but I've always felt like outright dissallowance is not a good method of design. Choices breed creativity and interest. This game already has plenty of Mage X only cards.

-nihil

I have to disagree with you. Mage only spells limit creativity, but there are only few of such spells and I think it is great. It is like giving each mage some optional unique abilities - similar to leveling in RPGs.

Your suggestion is ok (I am not crazy about it and I would be perfectly fine if it would be never included in Mage Wars), but as an addition to current system.
I would even dare to say, something like that is already in game - think of Ring of Curses - instead of it, we could have "this spell costs 1 mana less if you are playing Warlock" on every curse spell. I like Ring of Curses more, because it is optional, thematic and it is clearer solution.

You'll forgive me, but I can't find an argument in your post.

First you say you disagree with me, then you say Mage only spells do limit creativity, then you start talking about RPGs, then you rag on my idea some, then you start talking about the Ring of Curses, then you imply that there's a problem and identify said ring as a solution to said problem without actually identifying the problem, outright.

The word "coherent" does not apply.

So...I'm having difficulty forming a rebuttal.

-nihil

[Gewar]

When cards are only usable by Mage X it limits spellbook construction creativity. I understand the limitations, both from a design perspective and a thematic perspective, but I've always felt like outright dissallowance is not a good method of design. Choices breed creativity and interest. This game already has plenty of Mage X only cards.

-nihil

I have to disagree with you. Mage only spells limit creativity, but there are only few of such spells and I think it is great. It is like giving each mage some optional unique abilities - similar to leveling in RPGs.

Your suggestion is ok (I am not crazy about it and I would be perfectly fine if it would be never included in Mage Wars), but as an addition to current system.
I would even dare to say, something like that is already in game - think of Ring of Curses - instead of it, we could have "this spell costs 1 mana less if you are playing Warlock" on every curse spell. I like Ring of Curses more, because it is optional, thematic and it is clearer solution.

You'll forgive me, but I can't find an argument in your post.

First you say you disagree with me, then you say Mage only spells do limit creativity, then you start talking about RPGs, then you rag on my idea some, then you start talking about the Ring of Curses, then you imply that there's a problem and identify said ring as a solution to said problem without actually identifying the problem, outright.

The word "coherent" does not apply.

So...I'm having difficulty forming a rebuttal.

-nihil

I'm sorry - I'm not a perfect english speaker. What I meant:
- I dissagree that Mage Only spells are bad design.
- I do not love your idea of "better when used by certain mage" spells.
- I agree that they limit creativity, but there are enough not-exlusive spells to be very creative.
- I like Mage Only spells, because they are like optional unique abilities for those mages - and I like more uniqness for Mages.
- you proposed spells like Familiar that is better when used by some kind of mage - I pointed out that we already have such system in Mage Wars - curses are cheaper for Warlock - if he uses Ring of Curses.

[Nihilistiskism]

When cards are only usable by Mage X it limits spellbook construction creativity. I understand the limitations, both from a design perspective and a thematic perspective, but I've always felt like outright dissallowance is not a good method of design. Choices breed creativity and interest. This game already has plenty of Mage X only cards.

-nihil

I have to disagree with you. Mage only spells limit creativity, but there are only few of such spells and I think it is great. It is like giving each mage some optional unique abilities - similar to leveling in RPGs.

Your suggestion is ok (I am not crazy about it and I would be perfectly fine if it would be never included in Mage Wars), but as an addition to current system.
I would even dare to say, something like that is already in game - think of Ring of Curses - instead of it, we could have "this spell costs 1 mana less if you are playing Warlock" on every curse spell. I like Ring of Curses more, because it is optional, thematic and it is clearer solution.

You'll forgive me, but I can't find an argument in your post.

First you say you disagree with me, then you say Mage only spells do limit creativity, then you start talking about RPGs, then you rag on my idea some, then you start talking about the Ring of Curses, then you imply that there's a problem and identify said ring as a solution to said problem without actually identifying the problem, outright.

The word "coherent" does not apply.

So...I'm having difficulty forming a rebuttal.

-nihil

I'm sorry - I'm not a perfect english speaker. What I meant:
- I dissagree that Mage Only spells are bad design.
- I do not love your idea of "better when used by certain mage" spells.
- I agree that they limit creativity, but there are enough not-exlusive spells to be very creative.
- I like Mage Only spells, because they are like optional unique abilities for those mages - and I like more uniqness for Mages.
- you proposed spells like Familiar that is better when used by some kind of mage - I pointed out that we already have such system in Mage Wars - curses are cheaper for Warlock - if he uses Ring of Curses.

Okay, thanks for breaking that down. Now...

1) When I say "bad design" I should clarify: From my experience, when it comes to customized games, when a card can only be used by X, it usually means that the design team sat down and created it for X, but then realized that it would be too powerful for Y and Z, so rather than invest time and resources into balancing it for Y and Z they take the lazy-man's route of simply restricting it to X. Staking that to Mage Wars was unfairly assumptive of me, and I therefore committed a fallacy, and will have to reposition that argument.

2) You do not love my idea of making certain spells better for certain mages, or providing penalties against for other mages, yet you don't explain your reasonings. I don't like the color magenta. Same argument. W-H-Y don't you like the idea?

3) Argument 3 is...well I forget the form, but it's a fallacy for damn sure. Substitutional proof turns your argument into: "I agree that Slave trading is bad, but since the majority of people in the world aren't subjugated by the slave trade, it's not really a problem." When you admit an identified evil, then defend the evil, you are being circuitous, and not providing a defensible argument...you're just skirting the issue. Downplaying a wrong doesn't make it less wrong...it just distracts from the wrong.

4) What I take from this is that you like that certain Mages are unique in certain ways. I understand your argument, but my counter-argument would be that Mages are unique by merit of their spell schools, special abilities, and status points. Mages are already very unique to themselves...it is not necessary to limit the creativity of spellbook design to make them "more so." This is an actual debate.

5) No, that's missing the point. I say I want "X." You counter by saying "X exists through a secondary process of Y." That's not what I want. I want X. Not YX.

-nihil

[Gewar]

Okay, thanks for breaking that down. Now...

1) When I say "bad design" I should clarify: From my experience, when it comes to customized games, when a card can only be used by X, it usually means that the design team sat down and created it for X, but then realized that it would be too powerful for Y and Z, so rather than invest time and resources into balancing it for Y and Z they take the lazy-man's route of simply restricting it to X. Staking that to Mage Wars was unfairly assumptive of me, and I therefore committed a fallacy, and will have to reposition that argument.

2) You do not love my idea of making certain spells better for certain mages, or providing penalties against for other mages, yet you don't explain your reasonings. I don't like the color magenta. Same argument. W-H-Y don't you like the idea?

3) Argument 3 is...well I forget the form, but it's a fallacy for damn sure. Substitutional proof turns your argument into: "I agree that Slave trading is bad, but since the majority of people in the world aren't subjugated by the slave trade, it's not really a problem." When you admit an identified evil, then defend the evil, you are being circuitous, and not providing a defensible argument...you're just skirting the issue. Downplaying a wrong doesn't make it less wrong...it just distracts from the wrong.

4) What I take from this is that you like that certain Mages are unique in certain ways. I understand your argument, but my counter-argument would be that Mages are unique by merit of their spell schools, special abilities, and status points. Mages are already very unique to themselves...it is not necessary to limit the creativity of spellbook design to make them "more so." This is an actual debate.

5) No, that's missing the point. I say I want "X." You counter by saying "X exists through a secondary process of Y." That's not what I want. I want X. Not YX.

-nihil

You have to learn how to conversate with other people without being rude, or you will find yourself without people to conversate with.

1) no comment needed.
2) I do not like it - and that's it - in my original post (chaotic one) it was just an introduction to my following sentences.
3) No - it is not a fallacy. Unique spells make less customization, but it is not the problem. You do not have to could customize everything. There is no customization with Mage's abilities and if there would be, there would be more choices - same with Mage Only spells - there would be more customization if they would not be Mage Only.
4) You agree with me that that makes Mages more unique, but you accept a scenario where they would be less unique. It's like saying that slavery is bad, but accepting it on small scale... oh wait.
5) WHY?

[Hedge]

X only cards are Crap, Plain and Simple. We are lucky enough that this game is not in a booster format which would make it even worse.


Mage are Unique by their individual stat cards. Adding other cards that are limited to one type is just a waste of cardboard. Because in later expansion you need to print additional cards to give that same or reasonably close ability to the other mages.

Which has already been Proven by Koz's OP wanting a Warlock Familiar. There is already two but he can't use them because they are x only Cards.

By making cards this way Design is trying to dictate the way each mage should be played or removing a playstyle(s) from certain mages arsenols. They should certainly make it more difficult for a mage to do all playstyles, which shools already do, but they should not eliminate the ability to make a decent spell book for any mage with any playstyle.


Also my final point comes down to Customer service. They are taking away my choice as a customer and whenever possible you want the the customer to decide what takes place. That moves the fault to the customer and off the merchant. Almost always not making the customer angry in the process. I get very upset with AW evertime I see a X only card. Is it enough to make me not by the game and continue playing, no.  But I am only one person it might just be enough or more so for other people.


Hedge

[Nihilistiskism]

1) Don't talk down to me, and attempt to derail the thread with ad hominem arguments. I showed you courtesy.

2) Maybe there is a language barrier between us, but I think you are very much missing the point of a lot of what I'm trying to say. You are either unwilling or unable to debate this, so I'm going to stop this conversation.

-nihil

[Shad0w]

If we can not continue in a constructive manner I will have no choice but to close this thread.

[Hedge]

I am aghast at the sheer number of Mage Specific cards that were release in the newest Set. If this continues I may just have to stop playing, promoting , and Purchasing this game. I mean when 27% of the new Cards are X only, I wonder Why Do I bother when I only play with one or two different Mages.



Hedge

[DarthDadaD20]

Mage only cards make sense to me. Why would a priestess have a spell called drain life? Or own a dark sword that cast curses? The forecasters wouldn't be too special if just anyone could cast mind control. Every mage is getting them, (so it's not unfair)focused on what makes a particular mage special, I wouldn't want every mage to have the same abilities and these cards just add something to each mage, it doesn't take anything away from any other mage. I cannot in anyway see how anyone has a problem with the idea. If you don't like mage only cards,don't ever play any other game like this, as they are far more restrictive then just a few cards.Clerics don't learn wizard spells. Mono-black has no oblivion rings. Blackgaurds don't cast mass heal no matter how many people on teamspeak ask him too. You can't mix troop types or factions in most warskirmish games. You won't see ring wreaths and hobbits on the same team. I really don't see the problem here. You are entitled to your opinions, but this game lets you do far more than most.