Item 3 wouldn't work, you would either be casting AoE on top of your own units, or you would be missing half of the AoE.
So, keeping all your units spread out at all times should be the norm? That limits a lot of abilities that reply on your grouping your champions. It also means you need your army spread out, regardless of what spells the enemy actually has. And what is your objection to reducing spell presence and having enemies need to get into a fight to cast offensively?
Unless you're close and positioned correctly. Which seems a lot fairer than being within 7 spaces, dropping 3 AoEs at the edge and retreating. I just think you should be properly engaging an enemy before you throw down offensive spells on them. I don't think the original idea of AoE spells was to allow you to extend beyond your presence on top of affecting a large group. It would also mean an enemy could tactically form his units up to keep your presence away from certain units, or actually force you to have to damage yourself to hit them. This would remove a lot of the free harass at no risk from spells in general. But it's not exactly a "final plan" from me. I like the idea of lower spell presence because it makes spells less "safe" when casting on an enemy. But if you have other ideas for AoE's, I am keep to hear them. Tbh, I wouldn't mind the DoT treatment for AoEs with the spell presence (minus point 3) changes. The presence would allow single target spells to stay as effective while the AoE's get extra range at the cost of not having instant damage.
Spellspam is not meta viable. The old ST times with 2x icestorm, 2x deep freeze are almost entirely gone, KF has AE 3, which is rather avoidable usually, and anathema and firestorm are expensive as hell. I don't really see your problem. Do you like phalanx-style or what? Sorry, but thats mostly dead, though it was more cones than AE's that killed it.
I am more talking about being able to tactically avoid spells via presence. Forming up or not. Right now presence isn't a tactical element, it just means "cannot hit the other end of the map". In a combat situation, or any place where there are units within 10 tiles of each other, it means pretty much nothing. And if we can't limit spells by a new resource, and nora can't balance them correctly, then why not simply limit the casting presence? No new mechanic, just new depth to an existing one.
Isn't spell presence 5 spaces, 7 for flying? AoE 3, which many AoE are, has a 7 space diameter. That means a ground unit that is being used to cast an AoE 3 spell is always going to be hit by it or is going to have part of the AoE outside its spell presence. If your opponent can save up enough nora to cast 3 AoE spells on you, you're playing too much of a turtle. Pox isn't a war with two armies lined up facing each other. It is a skirmish with a few units on each side trying to gain a tactical advantage, where the right timing can be the difference between defeat and victory.
Yeah, presence could be cut a bit shorter without hurting much things, I agree there. But not by much, or AE 4 will start hitting yoruself.
I can probably agree that the AoE presence, if the presence overall was reduced, could reasonably extend out of the casting area. My bias right now is that it can hit something 10 tiles away. Zero risk for a large AoE effect.
Personally, the 5 range for ground units is fine, but I could see 4. I agree that the flying bonus could go away.
Thank you. I admit AoE4+ would be an issue. But I don't think that should cut the possibility. Those spells could be tweaked with that in mind.
4 on all units would sound reasonable. Then maybe Stealth could halve it, so a stealthed unit is either casing single target spells, or at least having to reveal himself to throw out an AoE. Maybe engaging could reduce spell presence by 1. But that's just an idle thought. But it would be another tactical element. Not sure it would be required with a 4 spell presence though. And might be a bit clunky mechanically. Also, just replying to the phalanx-style bit. I admit, being able to group up is nice. But I am absolutely fine with cones killing that. Because, unlike a spell, you see a cone coming. And that makes a big difference.
Also, similarly to Weaken Spells, you could make a terrain type that grants Spell Resistance. Similar to DMZ, but better for dealing with AoEs. Maybe similar art style to DMZ/Hallowed Ground but Purple. Then there's the possibility of: Spells to cast it. Trail: Anti-Magic Zone Anti-Magic Zone (AoE around a unit) Dampen Magic (Similar to Euan's Consecration) etc. Just another way to tactically beat out spell damage. This way is also obvious to the enemy, so they are aware of the reduced damage. Just thinking of ways to make AoE spells or damage spells not always the best options. Another thing might be passively granting Spell Resistance to anyone with the Shielded effect. Since the point of a shielded unit is to not be affected much by spells. The only thing adding this would hurt is AoE damage too, since, obviously, they are shielded from anything else ^^ As an added benefit, anything that discourages overloading your BG with damage spells, encourages the addition of utility spells. I would also propose that Loss of Life in most spells needs re-evaluating as the "damage" type.
