Maybe this is whining I just found a 4-player game a bit odd because I ran out of spells early on while killing one player and fighting my way out again, and then only had half strength left to do anything for most of the game. Am I right in thinking that the number of spells stays the same no matter how many players? If so here's my ill-informed punt for more spells when more players.

I mean fair enough, manage your resources carefully and all that... I'm just thinking that in previous Chaos variants it was possible to increase the number of spells, or to e.g. get an extra random spell every few turns, or more spells for killing a wizard, which helped address this kind of issue.

Anyway, great to see this game out, I've been playing it and its relatives since 1990

Tis a good point. I often find in 4 player matches I have to hold back more and hope the other wizards expend their strength on each other so I have enough spells left to see me to the end. It makes sense that we should have a couple more spells for 3 or 4 player matches to compensate for the additional enemies.

I think it's not so much a matter of number of players as number of turns. A match with 25 turns could use more spells than a match with 15 turns.

The more players in a match... the more likely the game will go to the end... the less burning cards remains a viable tactic except in extremis.

Both good arguments....you could have the deck top up with an extra 2 or 3 spells when each wizard dies, but you have to account for the eventual possibility of 8-player games, presumably lasting many more turns. Even 2 extra spells per dead wizard could result in 12 more spells available by the time it gets to 1-on-1!

Spells directly relating to number of turns? Maybe works better, but that does rely on there being a well-calculated relationship between player numbers and turns. I really don't like the fact that sitting back and doing nothing is often a strong tactic in larger matches though, especially in a game where mana sprites have been specifically introduced to promote proactive play.

NoWorries wrote:The more players in a match... the more likely the game will go to the end... the less burning cards remains a viable tactic except in extremis.

I agree - In multiplayer games, it's just a case of managing your spells differently.

Kahangriel wrote:I think it's not so much a matter of number of players as number of turns. A match with 25 turns could use more spells than a match with 15 turns.

This is where the extra spells are needed.

Granthor wrote:Spells directly relating to number of turns? Maybe works better, but that does rely on there being a well-calculated relationship between player numbers and turns.

You could just have it depend absolutely on the number of turns - 15 turns = 15 spells.

Granthor wrote:I really don't like the fact that sitting back and doing nothing is often a strong tactic in larger matches though, especially in a game where mana sprites have been specifically introduced to promote proactive play.

It's only strong if/when the mana sprites encourage other players to become reckless.

If you increase the number of spells available beyond the number of turns then every player will take the option of burning, this will lead to more spell success/less illusions and a side effect might also be that players become less interested in picking up those mana sprites. In each direction I think you'd get less risk/reward payoff. So I'd purely base the number of spells on the number of turns.

I can see the point about more spells could encourage burning. At the same time, if burning is a viable tactic in a 2 player game, why not in a 4 player? At the moment if I burn in a larger game I could well be at risk of not having enough to finish the game. Depends on the spell I suppose - if I cast a shadow forest I can attack all players; if I cast a mega bolt I can probably only take out one player.

Another way of looking at it could be that instead of / as well as being able to pick up mana, it's possible to pick up spells (which can be exchanged for mana).

I think the idea of new spells on killing a wizard works well because it rewards engagement rather than sitting around, and at the same time doesn't guarantee that you'll get loads of spells so you can just squander them