One of the things that struck me from the IKRPG video was the remark that different careers will be balanced with one another, so that warcasters aren't the "best" choice. And I couldn't help but wonder, is that actually a good thing?
The impression I generally get about Warcasters is kind of like Jedi in Star Wars. Some are cooler than others, but if you hold that title there is no doubt, you are a formidable individual. And one of the neat things about a role playing game is that they don't actually have to be fair. Some individuals are scarier than others, just like npc monsters. If you as a schmoe run into Sorcha and flip her the bird, guess what, you're going to feel the pain and end up in frozen fragments.
This impression is reinforced by the miniature game where warcasters are almost always portrayed as pretty hardcore. The worst one in the game is a 3 point i.e. high level solo. And full warcasters are just the best models in the game . Even 4 or 5 point solos do not compare one on one vs even the weakest of warcasters or warlocks. So the idea that such people should be comparable to others seems to fly in the face of the established universe.
Do you think they should be "balanced"? Or should they be a higher level option? Or should warcasters be treated like Magi are in Ars Magica, focal characters that the rest of the game revolves around?