Picking up the good idea, and Jason's point, how about
using the +20 Assas/ Kidnap as a model to regulate
uptake of the SNA, i.e. only 1 (2?) nation(s) / side,
and if 1 side chooses it then the other side is
notified and can also choose it.
Alternatively, 3 nations could each pay, say, 6000 for
1 curses mage (and not the ability to learn the spell
with their other characters). If that mage is killed,
they can pay 20k to name a new rank 50 mage that
starts with curses.
Curses would not be so powerful in 4th age, I think,
as
- noone starts with mage artefacts, so casting ranks
of 50-60 are going to be as good as it starts to start
with. Getting 3 successful casts off with 3 mages
with 70% chance of cast is only about 33%....
- in the first alternative above, realistically people
are going to need 2 or 3 60 mages in 1 side to achieve
this, which compromises the rest of the position
somewhat
Picking up the good idea, and Jason's point, how about
using the +20 Assas/ Kidnap as a model to regulate
uptake of the SNA, i.e. only 1 (2?) nation(s) / side,
and if 1 side chooses it then the other side is
notified and can also choose it.
That's already in the game. 1 nation (FP and DS) are allowed it max. If one side gets it then the other side has the option to.
Alternatively, 3 nations could each pay, say, 6000 for
1 curses mage (and not the ability to learn the spell
with their other characters). If that mage is killed,
they can pay 20k to name a new rank 50 mage that
starts with curses.
Certainly an option. I think we're going somewhat in that direction with Kin Strife.
Curses would not be so powerful in 4th age, I think,
as
- noone starts with mage artefacts, so casting ranks
of 50-60 are going to be as good as it starts to start
with. Getting 3 successful casts off with 3 mages
with 70% chance of cast is only about 33%....
But Sickness is and with more 60 Mages around then I think they're effectively the same.
- in the first alternative above, realistically people
are going to need 2 or 3 60 mages in 1 side to achieve
this, which compromises the rest of the position
somewhat
Yes did that and it worked well. We had 4 100% chance Weak squads by around turn 15 - that was 2 nations with the Weak SNA. The nations were compromised obviously but not majorly so. So I can imagine even more for Curse/Sick nations.
All I am asking for is a better chance to learn lost list spells.
Obviously I am looking to actually form a Curses company and kill
someone that way which has never been done in Fourth Age to date to
my knowledge. Even with an SNA that allowed learning lost list
spells it would still require naming alot of mages to even get
Curses on 3 of them and then you have to find the mage artifacts to
assist in the casting of the spell and get their mage ranks up to 70
natural so the 3 of them can kill someone. Most games dont even
last long enough for this to actually happen so I dont see where
this would be an unfair balance to the game.
Remember getting a lost list spell doesnt guarantee it will be
curses every time.
For the stealth SNA you can figure about 1 in 3 to 4 characters gets
stealth. So thats around a 25 to 33 percent chance to get a bonus.
There are 10 lost list spells so the odds are only a 10 percent
chance that a mage who actually gets a bonus would get curses.
Soo using those numbers the odds would be that it would take naming
somewhere between 30 and 40 mages just to get 3 with curses.
I dont see any major unbalancing of the game in that.
Add in Sickness and you up the chance to a massive 1/5 of getting a "half-mage-rank" Spirit Mastery spell -- but Sickness has that drawback of having to be in the same hex, which makes the mages vulnerable to agents.
That is why Curses is sooooooo much better, in 1650/2950 it is a way to counter agents without being big targets, but FA1000 loses that ability. Even with Sickness, having it take 3 mages to kill one agent means that agents can win the war of attrition -- put three killer agents in the same hex as three Sickness mages and you are likely to end up with only two of each left at the end of the turn -- and two mages with Sickness don't get a kill unless they are both 100 rank (not gonna happen) whereas the agents are certainly capable of killing the mages still. And in fact you could easily end up with only one mage left and two agents. Could go the other way too, but only if the agents are foolish enough to risk challenges and the mages actually challenge them.
Anyway, by itself Weakness is a very poor second cousin to either Sickness or Curses. But take away the ability to K/A characters (i.e. in an NKA game) and suddenly Weakness becomes the big dangerous SNA! That simply shows how powerful the ability to kill characters is within the game. I think that Weakness is almost good enough to be a factor in LAS games, it is still a less viable option than simply having some big agents with 10 stealth in terms of killing power. Add in the possibility of Sickness and Curses and you can use Weakness to fill in the cracks for the "same hex" kills, that I think balances LAS format to make mage kills viable, and might be enough to make +20K/A for one nation per side "acceptable" to some of us who hate it but can live with it...
All I am asking for is a better chance to learn lost list spells.
Obviously I am looking to actually form a Curses company and kill
someone that way which has never been done in Fourth Age to date to
my knowledge. Even with an SNA that allowed learning lost list
spells it would still require naming alot of mages to even get
Curses on 3 of them and then you have to find the mage artifacts to
assist in the casting of the spell and get their mage ranks up to 70
natural so the 3 of them can kill someone. Most games dont even
last long enough for this to actually happen so I dont see where
this would be an unfair balance to the game.
Remember getting a lost list spell doesnt guarantee it will be
curses every time.
For the stealth SNA you can figure about 1 in 3 to 4 characters gets
stealth. So thats around a 25 to 33 percent chance to get a bonus.
There are 10 lost list spells so the odds are only a 10 percent
chance that a mage who actually gets a bonus would get curses.
Soo using those numbers the odds would be that it would take naming
somewhere between 30 and 40 mages just to get 3 with curses.
I dont see any major unbalancing of the game in that.
