My first note is actually with the accuracy system based on how it's described in the flare spell. I believe it may be better just to keep accuracy benefits with a spell like flare as a footnote, and rather just have lighting levels be the modifier for accuracy. Since flare modifies lighting levels, it would therefor indirectly benefit accuracy. I think that this simplifies the spell in a sense without changing it, by moving the complexity to a more global concept that's still intuitive. Secondly, I do think that it should be the lighting of the targets, not the shooters, that is relevant for accuracy.
[strike]My second note is with the "dark" and "light" side effects. The extra effects cause these spells to benefit light, and hurt dark units. The problem I see with that is balancing it for all situations. Obviously the spell is double-edged in dark vs dark, and can benefit your opponent in light vs light. However, in dark vs light both side-effects are benefitting one player. This inherently makes it much stronger in that situation (from the light perspective...), and it must be balanced for that best case scenario. As a result, it may end up being way too weak to be competative in the other situations. This sample principle obviously still applies in reverse to "good for dark, bad for light". It doesn't mean this has to go, there just must be counter-balances to ensure that the spell is still viable in all situations.[/strike]
Each spellcaster will have an option to develop into either a dark magician or light magician (jedi?:P). This is a choice which player will have to make once their spellcas
I thought each faction could pick to be "dark" or "light", not the spellcasters themselves. That changes matters.
No strike-out option on this forum?
My final word is on counters: keep them simple. Make them intuitive and standardized. The last thing you want to hear is "I didn't know that spell could stop this...", because there are so many different combinations. I think you should produce a table of elements and how they interact. You haven't exactly stated what a "counter" does (I presume it cancels the spell's effect entirely), but I think that what might be neat is if different types of spells had different effects.
Another point I'd like to make on counters is that often they are "one shot" things. I think it would be interesting if some spells were too strong to be fully countered by a weaker counter-spell. The rules of their interaction would still be the same, but the counter-spell would fizzle out of energy before it finished its job.
You still haven't said how spellcasters learn new spells, or how they improve otherwise with time (presumeably an experience system similar to heroes will exist for them).
I do think it might interesting if spellcasters, in addition to learning spells, could purchase "ranks" in each element, deciding which ones they will be stronger in. A character who specializes in a single element will (obviously) have the strongest spells and the least versitility. To counter-balance the fact that this may favour three heroes each specializing in a different element (don't want to make it that simple) you might also make it so that a spellcaster's rank also makes their spells less vulnerable to counter by that element. For instance, a water/fire elemental caster's fire spells wouldn't be as powerful as a fire specialist's, but they'd be less vulnerable to counter-spell by water. Maybe combine with a few other unique bonuses (earth = tougher spellcasters, for instance) and this could make a fun way to develop spellcasters, in addition to picking their spells.
We are debating if player`s will be allowed to resurrect their spellcasters (like other heroes
The question comes down to how many resources are invested in a spellcaster, and how easy it is to recover from the loss of one. Simply put, if people invest a large amount of resources and lose something, they tend to quit the game. That's just no fun; so if a spellcaster is a long-term resource commitment, it absolutely must come back. Secondly, often in these games the window of opportunity before a high level unit can be replaced is significantly large that an enemy can just win the game. I do not feel that, on its own, the loss of a spellcaster should result in a loss of the game, but if the amount of time it takes to replace it is great enough, that may effectively be the case. Again, that should mean that spellcasters must ressurrect.
Oh, and lastly; no, not too complicated. I think when you get around to using these spells, you'll quickly get a sense for what they do. This would be too complicated if the game had 50 or 60 spells, but 24, this feels about right.