I expect them to be capable of playing the game. That's it. Anything else is their own personal expectation of themselves, especially if considering skill. Naturally players will transition through those phases of skill level as they play. Or they won't, because they refuse to acknowledge something they may have learned/were taught. No, but I expect that they may learn that it happens and, as I stated, grow as an expectation o themselves to account for that. So you don't like there being various ways of showing skill in the game. Everyone should do the same thing, and not be able to gain an advantage through positioning and prediction? That is what I am getting from this "or do you" run on. You balance around making the game work. If there is an over abundance of something in a competitive sense, it's likely trampling the more casual player base. So you fix it. I disagree. Wizards are utility pieces. Sure, some have excellent spells, but having two standard ones that have decent effects themselves allows choice. And having two of the same also gives you redundancy alongside that choice. Your "it's impossible" backpedal to it being awkward or impossible in certain cases (which in those cases was actually fixing an exploit no?), is a bit perplexing when the discussion centers around exploits. It's not impossible, and it's part of a fixed exploitative system that we experienced early on in AoS. The Rule of 1 is good for everyone. From the lowly WAAC to the most Chad narrative gamer that can choose not to use it since it's not part of Narrative.