I will say that the argument against table space is bogus, considering the numbre of creatures on the table is infinite. 10 cards on the table is 10 cards, regardless of whether or not some of those are "kingdom" cards.
That said, it would get pretty hairy trying to figure out which monster belonged to which kingdom. Introducing a new row for each kingdom might help except that the table would easily get crowded after so many kingdoms were introduced.
I think you captured it much better than me.
The need to somehow mark out and organize more space/zones
on a table and to do it in good intuitive ways isn't easy at all IRL. It is however also not a real or main problem maybe since spatiality almost doesn't matter in the version that Raven suggested, thus you're right that it's not much of an argument from my side.
I don't think scope would be any different than it is now. "One ore more kingdoms" takes care of the ambiguity issue. I would be concerned about the level of micromanagement introduced with this mechanic.
Agree that scope could work as it already does, but the system makes less usage of spatiality since a creature can defend and attack from everywhere
, making it all very unintuitive in a new sort of way (but that's not a good argument either, I admit). The main worry I have is that it will fragment the game and make every hotspot have few cards around it and a simplistic behaviour instead of having fewer hotspots with more complex chain reactions and interactions: This goes without saying since the amount of cards in the deck are the same but have to be divided
somehow between x kingdoms (in contrast to my suggestion, where they're divided between 2 fronts at most).
I'm not as worried about the microing, or administration of it as I call it elsewhere, as the amount of cards is the same. Asp might have a point when he points his it though as it would generate some
additional admin if
creatures can move between kingdoms.
Anyways, like I stated before, I'm not so keen on dismissing a game mechanic without having first tested it. Some things that sound 'complicated' or 'bad' end up making a game exciting.
I don't want to give the impression that I dismiss something quite yet. When I do it I do it more literary/explicit, as will be seen later in this post.
The dev of the ORC is an open and pretty transparent process where I'd welcome all contributions, and I'd be the happiest one around if somebody found flaws in what is still an unfinished and young ruleset that's in need of plenty
of concept testing, to later be thrown into play testing. In the same manner I think it's refreshing and interesting to see suggestions on how it can be improved by new additions/mods. If it's done with my blessing or not is irrelevant as long as it is documented and worked upon by whoever wants to push the changes and believes in them - forking rulesets and alternative ones in the cases where devs have very incompatible point of views or come to very different conclusions have been encouraged since day one of the project.
I believe all ideas should be able to withstand a discussion and think that a good idea will survive the scrutiny in a forum. By asking, questioning and sharing we develop new ideas, improve old ones and trash some along the process. For example, I myself have already trashed one design I did since I eventually thought it had too many problems associated with it. It was playable but not what I could call "optimal" or even near what I would call the ideal set.
Sometimes great ideas are only great in theory and will prove bad in practice when doing concept testing, other times it's the other way around. I can't say what is "true" or not about the Kingdom concepts that Raven offered, but think they can only become better by us all discussing them. If nothing else Raven might get additional ideas
In this case the mechanic can't be tested since there are still many practical questions surrounding it, some of which I voiced.
To be extra clear on this one: I have no issues with anyone testing anything they want without me thinking it is a good idea or being excited about it. I even think that would be good as I often consider myself and my conservative and slow dev approach as one of the bottle-necks in the project.
I always thought that ORC was simply a reference design and while it could evolve, shouldn't change too much. In the case that another ruleset became popular, it could then be adopted as the ORC.
Then again, maybe I'm missing the point all together
No, you hit bulls eye: Project is open for any number of rule dev teams. They are expected to create the rules and the cards for their rule set, and also playtest it and eventually offer it as a candidate for the offical rules for WTactics. All rulesets will be tried out by the internet communities and benevolent me will eventually deem one as the official ruleset based on what goals are mapped out in the GDD.
The major difference between kingdoms and other card types is that these kingdoms define how much "life" you have left. If you lose all of your kingdoms, you have lost the game. Additionally, you can conquer kingdoms
When you have lost all your kingdoms you lose the game.
So.. each kingdom is "one life"?
And there's nothing stopping a player from putting for example 10 kingdoms in play?
If I conquer a kingdom, does it mean that it then counts to my own life pool? And also, do I get it's effects?
In the case where that (3) is true I am very reserved to it: The result of losing a kingdom is double punishment: First it punishes the player by having him/her lose the "hp". Then, it punishes her by awarding
the opponent once more by making his/her "hp" grow.
An enemy always attacks a specific kingdom. It is then up to the defending player to select defenders within that kingdom. If no defender is chosen for an attacker, the kingdom card itself blocks each unblocked attacker. If this defeats the kingdom card, the enemy gains control of the kingdom.
How does that work?
Is the combat against the undefended Kingdom resolved as it would be with an enemy creature, where the Kingdom "survives" (is unconquered) if the attackers combined ATK values are less than the Kingdoms DEF?
Or does the Kingdom have a "hp" that you have to keep track of? In this last case I think it just brings additional admin.
Like any permanent card they may have any ability. For example the kingdom could give +0/+2 to all local units. It could also have abilties like "deal 2 damage to a unit attacking this kingdom (use this ability only once each turn)". Most abilities will probably help to defend the kingdom or support your own troops when they attack. But other abilities are also conceivable.
With other words, they don't really bring effects that can't be brought by other means: Their real thing that set them apart from other types are conquerability & them being the same as the players HP.
a) Movement and almost all spatial b) strategy becomes totally broken by this suggestion, and is almost removed altogether.
Yes, you need different strategies with these rules. I'm not entirely sure if it will work out well, but I like the idea and therefore I presented it to you.
Movement is almost insignificant in your setup and the benefits it brings to the game are lost. I explain some of these in another recent post to aspidites in http://chaosrealm.net/wtactics/forum/vi ... p=940#p940
There might be other ways to use spatiality to bring strategic depth that I'm not aware of, but in the case with the ORC I won't ditch movement because of the intro of a new cardtype. I think the spatiality stuff the fronts introduce should be kept intact, at least in ORC, and that it is the cardtype that should be adapted to it instead.
That said, I am not claiming your suggestion as it is wouldn't work out in another ruleset or that spatiality is a must in a good ruleset: I'm sure there can be much more delicate and deeper rules created without involving spatiality, but I'm not the one that can deliver them. I would however love to read them and try it all out.
For the ORC, with the preservation of a two front system, it would perhaps make more sense to rename the concept you suggest (cards with effects + cards as win condition + cards that can somehow be coquered/completed/used by both players) to Quests
instead to move it away from giving an impression that it somehow relates to spatiality.
The Quest idea has been presented by Q_x in the past and he also mentions it before me in this thread.
I think that Quest completion could potentially work as a win condition and add some interesting stuff to the game if it's properly executed. Most of Ravens ideas can be incorporated or be variants of Quests. (I wouldn't know myself how to achieve that right now and won't pursue that path too much unless I get some bright idea from following your discussions. I would love seeing it developed though...)
Q_x suggests an interesting notion when he mentions some kind of gold cap of who/what gets to achieve a quest. Another idea I had was that every quest can be worth different amounts of Quest Points
and that the win condition could be to achieve x QP's. Then again, why can't the QP's just be the same as the Quest Cards gold cost?
I don't know how good quests could work out or the exact nature of them (e.g. should all quests be possible to be accomplished by any player or just some? wouldn't all-by-all lead to very flat and uninteresting stuff? how would interesting and action specific stuff look? would one of the criterias for a good quest be that the opponents can somehow intervene/make it harder or easier for a player to finish a quest? and so on...) I've seen them in other CCG:s and it could be worth investigating the topic further, arguably in another thread if it's about Quests