If Arena had the same cards limit than Academy

[Wildhorn]

I am wondering how it would impact the game if Arena had the same cards limit than Academy (maximum 3x level 1, 2x the others).

I have the feeling it would have a positive effect and would certainly increase the diversity of decks.

It would increase the value of rarely seen cards because people who runs 6 dispel, 6 dissolve suddently can't have more than 3 of each, so they would get the other spells that do about the same thing.

This would also increase the diversity of creatures used in decks, so no more 4 Iron Golem or 4 Zombie Brutes, because the creatures you have to cut down would be replaced by other creatures.

Whatcha thinking?

[technicallynerdyrebel]

I can see what you're saying but I don't think it would have that much impact on Arena if such a change was made to card limit. I don't think there are too many cards that you want more than 3 or so of in an Arena book currently. It would probably have the biggest impact on swarm decks but those aren't that popular to begin with.

I do agree that it would make it interesting to see what people do when they can't have as many dissolve and dispel though.

[Sailor Vulcan]

Except you'd also have less copies of your enchantments and equipments, so dispel and dissolve would be relatively just as powerful as before.

[iNano78]

Most of my spell books wouldn't change at all. I rarely have more than 2 copies of any spells, even level 1s (occasionally 3 Brace Yourself or Bear Strength or Force Push)... with the notable exceptions of creature swarms (Bitterwood Foxes, Zombie Crawlers) and Burst of Thorns (aka the Duid's Mage Wand-compatible attack spell that can't be Reverse Attack'ed) and some Fire attack spells for the Adramelech Warlock. I generally prefer versatility/options to spamming lots of copies of the same spells with a more focused strategy. Also, I rarely play Wizard and am not a huge fan of the "undo war" so I don't tend to pack more than 2 each of Dispel, Seeking Dispel and Dissolve.

[exid]

I rarely have 4/6 copies of the same spell.
for the strategic reason iNano said (more options), and because I find ennoying to play allways the same cards during a game.

[Wildhorn]

Except you'd also have less copies of your enchantments and equipments, so dispel and dissolve would be relatively just as powerful as before.

Not really, because people rarely run more than 2 copies of enchantment/equipment.

[sIKE]

Except you'd also have less copies of your enchantments and equipments, so dispel and dissolve would be relatively just as powerful as before.

Not really, because people rarely run more than 2 copies of enchantment/equipment.

I could still carry multiples of different pieces of Armor if I would like and now you would only be able to counter 3 of them.....if you wanted to of course.

[Erebus]

At first I thought this thread was asking about how having only 40 Spellbook Points would affect the meta! People would have to be really careful about which cards they ran and I bet you'd run out fast!

[ringkichard]

Most books I build have a specific plan in mind for most matchups, and often that plan is: play all 4 copies of Xyzzy, then finish winning by hitting the foe with the biggest rock I can find. I tend to prefer strategic play to tactical play, so I try to make sure I go into combat with a plan.

Dropping the max # of cards makes it harder to implement a strategy, and shifts the game more toward tactics.

--

Speaking of which, there are lots and lots of strategy articles, but precious few on tactics. What gives?

[jhaelen]

I have the feeling it would have a positive effect and would certainly increase the diversity of decks.

I doubt it.
As has been pointed out by previous posters, there aren't actually many cards you run more than three - four copies of. Also, it might even _decrease_ diversity, because everyone would be able to include more 'staple' cards.

Imagine a Highlander format for Mage Wars (i.e. only a single copy of every card allowed in your spellbook):
Wouldn't every spellbook (at least for the different Mages) look alike?

[Wildhorn]

I have the feeling it would have a positive effect and would certainly increase the diversity of decks.

I doubt it.
As has been pointed out by previous posters, there aren't actually many cards you run more than three - four copies of. Also, it might even _decrease_ diversity, because everyone would be able to include more 'staple' cards.

Imagine a Highlander format for Mage Wars (i.e. only a single copy of every card allowed in your spellbook):
Wouldn't every spellbook (at least for the different Mages) look alike?

nope. there is currently 357 different cards (+domination +academy). So the chance a spellbook to be the same than another is pretty slim.

And if there is so few cards that you run over 2/3 copies, then it would not affect anything at all... But it is not the case. Here are some cards that is common to see over 2/3 copies when they are in a deck:

- Dissolve
- Dispel
- Enchantment Transfusion
- Bitterwood Fox
- Blue Gremlin
- Burst of Thorn
- Devouring Jelly
- Iron Golem (less common since the jelly took its place)
- Teleport
- Zombie Brute
- Zombie Crawler
- Thunderift Falcon

I think it would mainly affect pit, swarm and deny decks.

[exid]

Most books I build have a specific plan in mind for most matchups, and often that plan is: play all 4 copies of Xyzzy, then finish winning by hitting the foe with the biggest rock I can find. I tend to prefer strategic play to tactical play, so I try to make sure I go into combat with a plan.

Dropping the max # of cards makes it harder to implement a strategy, and shifts the game more toward tactics.

--

Speaking of which, there are lots and lots of strategy articles, but precious few on tactics. What gives?

I have a vocabulary problem:
you oppose the strategy, which is thought before the game (building the book) and the tactic, which is thought during the game (using your book), is it right?

[ringkichard]

I have a vocabulary problem:
you oppose the strategy, which is thought before the game (building the book) and the tactic, which is thought during the game (using your book), is it right?

Yes!

Strategy, the way I'm using the word, refers to the general plan, and the overall distribution of resources. Choosing to play lots of small creatures instead of 1 big creature is a strategic decision.

Tactics are the small decisions that you can make to try to improve your position from moment to moment. Choosing to between guarding and attacking is a tactical decision.

"Strategy without tactics is the longest path to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."

[exid]

I have a vocabulary problem:
you oppose the strategy, which is thought before the game (building the book) and the tactic, which is thought during the game (using your book), is it right?

Yes!

Strategy, the way I'm using the word, refers to the general plan, and the overall distribution of resources. Choosing to play lots of small creatures instead of 1 big creature is a strategic decision.

Tactics are the small decisions that you can make to try to improve your position from moment to moment. Choosing to between guarding and attacking is a tactical decision.

"Strategy without tactics is the longest path to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."

I allways have a strategy when I build a book. but sometimes the game (my opponent, my tacticals errors or the hard reality confronting my dreams) counters my strategy...
at this point I like to have a various book to improvise a new strategy during the game!