THE Book.

[Borg]

I tend to put atleast a single heal in all my books. Even at triple points cost.

A perfect illustration of my point that 120 starting sbp's is way too much.

An added negative effect is shown here : players start playing every mage the same way.
The abundance of sbp's reduces player's inventiveness in trying to find in-school solutions and alternative ways of playing.

Too many sbp's stimulates lazy bookbuilding.

This is not a criticism of you Beldin. It's a general observation.

[keejchen]

That title is total clickbait Jason

For real though, this is a good idea and I should get around to making my own. Having a skeleton to work from, rather than building from memory every time, would spare me the "where's my teleport"-moments when running a new book.
 
@Borg: As Jason says this is a list of his staples that are tailored to his own preferred solo playstyle, another players list will look very different, mine will probably be shorter. Jason's list is good, but more than half of the cards are not strictly necessary to make a good book.

I fail to see how releasing more expansions with good cards are a problem. In the days of the base game, books had more staples because we didn't have a choice. Now we have greater variety in every spelltype, more choices to make (easy examples are in the removal category: Crumble/Dissolve, Dispel/Disperse), and for the most part Mage Wars remains a fairly balanced game (though we agree that Pillar is a fluke, but at least it's epic).

I think you're wrong on the sbp. With 160 points we could make some even crazier books, it would allow us to dive deeper into the schools for cards that are not currently viable (i.e. competitive). There's two sides to every argument though, more sbp would also mean a longer game, fewer sbp would make it shorter (which I am aware that some players would prefer). All in all I think 120 is a good middle ground.

[bigfatchef]

I know this is a bit derailing the topic, but in my opinion 160 sbp would favor even more similarity in between all schools. So I think it would more bypass all school decisions instead of forcing players to five deeper into them. I really wonder how a 100 or even 80 sbp competition would look like. Books would be bed different by this forced shortage. Every spellbook would be short at some point. Players were forced to decide very hard. An Allrounder with answers to everything would have no space for an actual thread to bring on the board. Also game would get shorter - what I would absolutely love to see.

I really want to try this and I have the feeling that would improve the game a lot in several aspects.

To the original post: minor heal is absolutely missing.

[SirJasonCrage]

Yo, Keej.

Sorry. That clickbait absolutely accidentally somehow slipped in there without me noticing   

You get my drift though. Just trying to make Bookbuilding less of a hassle.


As for the sbp: Bigfat actually convinced me here, 100sbp would probably be a better change than 120. Then again, I'm just personally against change anywhere. I like Mage Wars the way it is, even if this thread is kinda lampshading one of my perceived flaws.


Concerning Heal or Minor Heal:
I rarely ever play heals. Just ain't my style. Even my Paladin has two Vampirisms instead of using those 12 sbp on heals

[bigfatchef]

Even my Paladin has two Vampirisms instead of using those 12 sbp on heals

You crazy 

[SirJasonCrage]

Just tried to build a Johktari out of this and found a huge flaw in the way I build the book.

Added a warning to the OP.

[Beldin]

I tend to put atleast a single heal in all my books. Even at triple points cost.

A perfect illustration of my point that 120 starting sbp's is way too much.

I would still find room for it at 80 points in every book, a single heal can turn the tide of the match from a loss and make it into a win. Lower SBP would not solve this problem, it would change the game. If anything it would make these types of plays/choices more significant. Heal is a perfect example as it lengthens the game, as long as you roll average and above. If anything I would still create my books the way I do now however I would more strongly to the Novice cards like Disarm, or even lower level cards which fill a more niche role, like Drop Weapon, instead. The standard toolbox would never go away. It is not lazy book building, it is covering key areas that are common problems with every book.

I want a teleport and a force push for positional control (Eg. removing the base builder from his favourable zone). I want heal and regrowth for the times in the match I am not the beatdown. Dispel and other removal have obvious places. This is not justification to include my favourite cards, these are staples for every book as they all face common problems. I am sorry but I will continue preaching this as gospel because it is fact. I will include these at 120/100/80 points.

If anything at double figures we run the risk of having auto-building books, as a single strategy will emerge as optimal for each mage, with a toolbox.

[zot]

I know this is a bit derailing the topic, but in my opinion 160 sbp would favor even more similarity in between all schools. So I think it would more bypass all school decisions instead of forcing players to five deeper into them. I really wonder how a 100 or even 80 sbp competition would look like. Books would be bed different by this forced shortage. Every spellbook would be short at some point. Players were forced to decide very hard. An Allrounder with answers to everything would have no space for an actual thread to bring on the board. Also game would get shorter - what I would absolutely love to see.

I really want to try this and I have the feeling that would improve the game a lot in several aspects.

To the original post: minor heal is absolutely missing.

this will easilly lead to more matches where folks can more often end up with a deck loss

[Borg]

With 160 points we could make some even crazier books

The problem with 160 sbp's is that now each spellpoint represents only 0.625% of your total spellpoints.
In other words : sbp's are seriously reduced in value and as a consequence you have seriously reduced the impact of single, double and triple cost of a spell which in turn leads to different schools having even less impact in spell choices than they already have.

At 160 sbp's a Pillar of Righteous Flame at triple cost would still only take up 3.75% ( 6 of 160 ) of your sbp total.
If the absolute best cards, at the costliest rate cost you no more than that to include in your book it should be glaring obvious that there is a problem with the single/double/triple cost implementation element in this game because it's reduced to a non-factor.

Think of it like this : if a kid has 1 dollar and he wants a candy he has to make choices.
Does he take a Mars, or a Snicker. A pack of Lays chips or something else ?
If you give that kid 100 dollars. He simply takes the Mars AND the Snickers AND the pack of Lays chips AND a whole lot more. There are no choices to make anymore. Just take all the goodies.

I fail to see how releasing more expansions with good cards are a problem.

The point of releasing new expansions is, among other things:
- fleshing out certain schools
- balancing out schools
- providing new strategies for different mages.
- other goals ...

HOWEVER, if the starting sbp's total is so high that EVERY mage can simply afford to include every power card, no matter what school it comes from and how much the cost then these expansions increase a certain problem : the new cards then don't simply strengthen a certain school type but rather strengthen EVERY mage from ANY SCHOOL.
Thus the number of staples for every mage simply increases with every expansion which is a bad effect imo.

This is a clear indication imo that there is a balance issue between individual card sbp cost and total sbp's available.
The school cost ( single/double/triple) is not impactful enough and does not work as restricting as it should imo.
The result is : every spellbook looks mostly the same and there's actually only 1 type of book successful : the "toolbox" book. There should be more viable archetypes than that ( cfr aggro vs control vs combo in MtG ).
Every healthy game needs a competitive "aggro" variant. MW does not have that.

Therefore, solution : reduce the number of starting sbp's to like 100, let players really make choices about what to put in their book instead of just putting in every power card.

I would still find room for it at 80 points in every book, a single heal can turn the tide of the match from a loss and make it into a win. Lower SBP would not solve this problem, it would change the game.

I understand your argument but it is a personal preference / playing style of yours as other players ( myself included ) find this much less of a "must have" card.
In a fitting book, I may go for a Heal as well but in general I'd rather play a damage spell on the opponent for the same mana.

If anything at double figures we run the risk of having auto-building books, as a single strategy will emerge as optimal for each mage, with a toolbox. 

I think it's much too soon to draw that conclusion. It might be just the other way around as far as I'm concerned. I would rather expect to see much more variety than we have now because people would have to build more "focused" books.

[keejchen]

Ok, but the thing you are describing is not happening in the meta. I see plenty of variety even in books of the same schools.

Yea, be it at 100/120/160 sbp, you could make 14 (almost) identical books, one for each mage, and they would be playable, sure, this is the beauty and freedom in Mage Wars. But I wager my hat you would loose 90% of your games with such books. Just because you can do it, doesn't mean it's viable, the choices and struggles are there, even if you choose to ignore them. If you disagree, please do come around to OCTGN and prove it, I'll believe it when I see it.

Your point about % is two-fold as well. If we agree that one 6 sbp card is a must, then at 160 it takes 3.75% as you say, leaving me with 96,25% to build with afterwards, more choice for me. At 100 sbp it accounts for 6%, leaving 94% of choice for me. Looking at it this way, less sbp is less choice. The notion that every book can afford every "power card" is just ridiculous, if only I could afford 4 mage wands and 4 elemental wands in every book!

[Arkdeniz]

I see another possibility:

Leave the total SBP at 120, but have a limit on the number of points that can be used for out of school spells.

If you say “no more than (eg 40/50/60) points can be out of school” then you serve both purposes of encouraging finding innovative in-school solutions to common situations, and encouraging the deeper use of traditionally ‘unviable’ spells that are rarely used, because you will have extra spellbook space for them.

Finally, the casual inclusion of triple-cost spells will stop. Using these will have to be very considered indeed, and serve very specific strategies and tactics.

[Borg]

The notion that every book can afford every "power card" is just ridiculous, if only I could afford 4 mage wands and 4 elemental wands in every book!

Keejchen, come on. Read again what you're saying here.
So because you cannot afford 4 mage wands and 4 elemental wands in every book my point is ridiculous ?

Honestly, I don't think this game is designed or meant to be played withh 4 of these in every book.

When I say every book can afford every power card I obviously mean 1 ( or 2 ) copies, not 4 of each ...

[keejchen]

We are arriving at the point: It is a choice.

I really love wands, so do I get 1 or 2? Jason has 1 in this standard book. Some of my mages do not even get 1, unless it is necessary/helpful for a specific combo. Wizards usually get more than 2, because they are in school. I am pretty sure I have at least 1 elemental wand in every book trained in an elemental school.

Wizards get 4-6 nullifies, Siren and Druid carry a good amount of dissolve/crumble. Would love to re-introduce fireballs in my Druid (for countering Druids), however, I have found that it is just not worth the 6 sbp, and I can find some solutions that are in school or at least not triple cost. I am still on the fence on whether Pillar is actually worth it in Necromancer (probably is though, since he has a lot of trouble in mirror matches).

You also cannot have 1 of every card in the game, there are ~700 cards in MW. Most books have 50-60ish cards, including copies.

So I say, sbp is tight if used right.

Anyways. You could play with 100 sbp and you might like it more, but you are not fixing a problem that everyone has. I have always been a fan of trying house rules, when I find flaws or shortcomings in games. I have a book I made with Karadox's archmage rules at 360 sbp, and I tell you, I could not afford all the stuff I wanted..

You should post your list of power cards, that you think should be in every book (100 sbp or whatever). Would love to see it, and it would be relevant for Jason's thread that we have otherwise horribly derailed. 

[DaveW]

I see another possibility:

Leave the total SBP at 120, but have a limit on the number of points that can be used for out of school spells.

If you say “no more than (eg 40/50/60) points can be out of school” then you serve both purposes of encouraging finding innovative in-school solutions to common situations, and encouraging the deeper use of traditionally ‘unviable’ spells that are rarely used, because you will have extra spellbook space for them.

Finally, the casual inclusion of triple-cost spells will stop. Using these will have to be very considered indeed, and serve very specific strategies and tactics.

The in school vs. normal cost for spells at least helps with the limit on out of school points.

What we might try also is to limit spell level out of school... instead of completely banning spells from opposed schools.

[wtcannonjr]

We are arriving at the point: It is a choice.

I really love wands, so do I get 1 or 2? Jason has 1 in this standard book. Some of my mages do not even get 1, unless it is necessary/helpful for a specific combo. Wizards usually get more than 2, because they are in school. I am pretty sure I have at least 1 elemental wand in every book trained in an elemental school.

Wizards get 4-6 nullifies, Siren and Druid carry a good amount of dissolve/crumble. Would love to re-introduce fireballs in my Druid (for countering Druids), however, I have found that it is just not worth the 6 sbp, and I can find some solutions that are in school or at least not triple cost. I am still on the fence on whether Pillar is actually worth it in Necromancer (probably is though, since he has a lot of trouble in mirror matches).

You also cannot have 1 of every card in the game, there are ~700 cards in MW. Most books have 50-60ish cards, including copies.

So I say, sbp is tight if used right.

This is the school of thought that I use in designing my spellbooks. There is a choice to be made around the number of copies of each spell that can be put into a book in addition to the first copy of each spell. So, the game does provide many choices across the spell types for each mage to use, but the depth of spells selected out of school will vary based on their training.

I would look to define a 'base book' for each of the Primary Schools rather than a single book across the entire spell pool. This allows you to include the idea of 'spell depth' into your design choices and play style which can be important when you consider counters to your opponents counter play lines of thinking. It also should be more useful to adapt as new expansions are added that focus on expanding various schools and/or lines of play.

Note - Arena currently (thru Lost Grimoire I expansion) has 482 different spells which includes Mage specific spells that not all books can include. I don't use the Academy spells since they tend to lower the SBP cost for mages to gain similar effects than a comparable Arena spell. e.g. An Arena spell at level 2 would require 4 SBP for an out of school mage, while a similar spell in Academy provides part of the same effect (e.g. +1 Melee rather than +2 Melee) as a level 1 spell.

I am not sure of the definition of "power card" that is being discussed here. This sounds different than the idea of a 'staple spell' that should be included in all spellbooks. The idea of allowing all mages to have access to a Pillar of Light card is fine with me since the cost varies by mage training. Powerful spells come in different flavors - Mage Specific, School Specific, Epic, Unique, and Legendary are variations that come to mind. Therefore, I don't see a reason to use house rules to further limit spells unless you want to further differentiate each mage's style of play through a more restricted set of spells in their books. Each restriction removes options for styles of play from different mages so it does come down to the level of choice that the game system provides to each mage.