CC2

[Q_x]

I have some questions first.
Will the quest in general be faction-dependent? Or will it be global pool?
Can quests be doubled in a single deck?
The quests that "like" a single faction more should not be possible, I'm afraid. Imagine a player taking only such quests, 2x 5 factions. His opponent will make 2 of those and fail all the rest unless a miracle will happen.

After all, I can't say I'm happy or not, or which system I like more. I guess that's what's called confusion.
Buildings kinda fit the game snugly, but quests are really elastic, give more taste.
I mean quest can be anything:
political crisis that one can make his opportunity,
a harbor that, when conquered, "generates" some extra "traders"
intelligence and counter-intelligence type of play
important facilities or strategical terrains
opportunity to clash armies with a different rules than normal battles
taking hostages and trading them back
a part of player's economy...

Plenty of space for creative thinking.
And I wouldn't be afraid that we'll ever run out of creative power, really. No matter if those were buildings or quests, it's not impossible to throw out some good cards, even with 1% of success rate.

Commanders, however... reminds me of Talisman.
With mixing factions, thresholds and costs into commanders and dividing the cost into three values the game looks more like towards 500-1000 card minimum. You will have to have plenty of cards. Same applies to trinity in any form in general. We'll not make it in this century. You will have to make about 50 commanders to even start with, plus plenty more cards. It can be playable way sooner, with a good subset of cards. But again - is the stake not too high for us to reach it? Just a doubt, not a real criticism, you may have a way prepared to cope with it.

All the rest looks really decent. I like the fact that piles are planned to be reusable somehow, no matter if stacked on buildings/quests or on commanders/pilars, I hope it'll contribute to lowering card count at least a bit.

Looks like quests and heroes don't mix together well, both tend to have stacked cards near them.

With the heroes/commanders having twice the size, you will hit some problems soon, like having a box to store and carry the cards

That's all for today, maybe I'll dream about something more

[snowdrop]

Will the quest in general be faction-dependent? Or will it be global pool?

I imagine a strong majority being general. Of the Quest subtypes I suggested 3 of 4 or open in theory and only 1 is faction specific.

Thing is there are two ways to make a quest involving for both players: One is to create it so that most payers, regardless of cards, can give it a try to achieve the Quest goals before the opponent does so. The other is to make is to create quests that we know that probably the player that plays them will have a chance of achieving , however, the opponent would want him to fail, so indirectly opponent will want to get into the action to hinder the player in his questing.

I'm for both approaches but believe most should be of the first type, while the last mentioned one can even be a "you-lose-the-quest-condition" for an opponent. Example: "To achieve this quest do x. For you to fail this quest opponent must do y." Possibilities are many.

The quests that "like" a single faction more should not be possible, I'm afraid. Imagine a player taking only such quests, 2x 5 factions. His opponent will make 2 of those and fail all the rest unless a miracle will happen.

When it comes to creating Quests that never ever favor any faction in any way over some other that is totally impossible to pull of, and if you do they will be so boring and generic so it doesn't give anything having them around. Basically a majority of all the cards in game will favor some faction and interact with it somewhat more or less than some other. It's not a biggie, unless you start creating cards that only work with 1 or 2 factions, then you start getting into all kinds of trouble.

When it comes to Faction Orders , the specific quest type I described in my suggestion, I agree: What you give as an example would be crap, and it would probably have to be limited somehow, for example only allowing players to include max 1 faction super-quest or so. Then again, if that's our solution, i much rather scrap that subcategory of Quests instead. Might be a good idea to do that. Yups.

I mean quest can be anything:
political crisis that one can make his opportunity,
a harbor that, when conquered, "generates" some extra "traders"
intelligence and counter-intelligence type of play
important facilities or strategical terrains
opportunity to clash armies with a different rules than normal battles
taking hostages and trading them back
a part of player's economy...

Buildings fit the theme, but so do Quests. And if you think about it Quests = Buildings. It's virtually the same idea, just somewhat re-themed into being more flexible and work somewhat differently: Buildings could be upgraded, Quests cant. Upgrades are moved to commanders instead. The conquerable objects are the Quests instead of the buildings.... and, there is nothing hindering us from creaing Quests that show a building that you can conquer.

With mixing factions, thresholds and costs into commanders and dividing the cost into three values the game looks more like towards 500-1000 card minimum. . You will have to have plenty of cards. Same applies to trinity in any form in general. We'll not make it in this century. You will have to make about 50 commanders to even start with, plus plenty more cards.

Yes, you're right. Thing is you were tired when you read the last paragraph(s) in the epicly lengthy text There I declare that:

• There will only be one single currency. Not 3. You can still only pay in "gold" (we have to rename that soon).
• Threshold slapped as a printed value on a commander saying Gaia 3 and/or Noble 2 doesn't lead to more cards being produced. Not unless of course you want one commander for every imaginable combo. For example Gaia 3/ Noble 2, Gaia 3 / Noble 1, Gaia 3 / Banner 2, Gaia 3 / Banner 1 etc etc... and then inverted for all. That is no my goal nor would we produce commanders just to give people every imaginable threshold-value-combo.
• Ability to mic Gaian cards and Banner cards in one deck also doesn't lead to us having to produce more heaps of cards.(The obvious exception is that we would indeed have to produce at least one commander that is Gaian / Banner)

I'm not sure how you conclude there would be 500 to 1000 cards around? If that's true I'm missing out on something important and I would be totally against the very notion of us releasing a core set of 500 cards, not to mention 1000. Core should be kept around 220 - 260 or something. Never, ever, ever above 300. Ever. Of the very same reason you write - it would take eons, and it would also be bad for basic balancing that we need to perfect in core both before and after release and before doing mini-expansions.

My plan was as I wrote: To release only 1-2 commanders per faction in the core. Max 3 in core set, for reasons discussed above. Each would be either mono-factioned or dual-factioned. I wouldn't want to introduce commanders (decks) with three factions in them until way later in the game when it's all very solid and mature. So, 2 x 5 = 10 extra cards to create to cover the commanders. Then we also have the Quests, lets say there are 20 - 30 of them or so, max, in core. Add the fact that I killed of Artifacts as a card type, which frees up "slots", and we're right on track pretty much.

Essentially, what we do with commanders, is to take away the total freedom people have in MtG to build any deck they want and mix whatever. To me that's not a problem, it's a feature. Legal 5-coloured decks aren't playable anyway in MtG and max viable number of factions there happens to be 2-3 per deck in a legal tournament game. So, they have the same situation as us inofficially . Yet I hear nobody complain about it and all experience "full freedom" at the price of using a shitty resource system with land cards.

While we limit people somewhat, we also a) present a meta-game challenge: One and the same deck could pan out very different just because of the commander-pick. b) Get more design control. Besides, new expansions would drop in some new commanders every now and then, re-vitalizing all old cards that are already around, opening new combos. Stuff we will have had time to try out and refine.

Goal in the end will be to allow any faction be in deck with any other, but, on our terms, so it's all balanced out. The fact that this - all be able to play with all in dual-factioned decks - won't be possible right from the core set isn't a biggie. It could even be turned into a good thing, building up a "thirst" among the players for renewal and new combos etc.

You will have to make about 50 commanders to even start with, plus plenty more cards. It can be playable way sooner, with a good subset of cards. But again - is the stake not too high for us to reach it? Just a doubt, not a real criticism, you may have a way prepared to cope with it.

Yes, that would indeed be a disaster and a goal we would never reach. 50 commanders in core set is 10 per faction, and that won't happen. I want to introduce new ones very slowly into the game, and I want the players to learn/know the ones that are around first and have explored them in every possible way first before releasing new ones. When new will be introduced we would only add 1 per faction per expansion. And we would not do it with every single expansions since I imagine we should have many but smaller expansions. I'd imagine 1 new commander per faction about every 3:d expansion or so, tops.

Release, observe, evaluate, build tension and expectations, repeat.

I like the fact that piles are planned to be reusable somehow /../ I hope it'll contribute to lowering card count at least a bit

I think they should be, and I know you have complained about it several times, and you were correct: There is no reason for why the player shouldn't be able to use them in an active manner eventually, for a trade-off. Mine wasn't that drastic and seemed balanced given the player could get up to 4(!) new cards directly by picking up the Power Pillar.

Card count is probably still lower in our game than in for example MtG: They fill 33% of the deck with Land-shit, which are usually inactive cards with the only single purpose of being resources. That leaves around 40 active cards. We have a count of 100% active cards. Even when not counting hero and Quests we still end up having more active cards in a deck of 60 cards.

My goal is still to be around the 60-limit, preferably spot on it or lower. Realistically though it leans towards 60. That's on par with most CCG:s, with the difference that we still give away our stuff.

Looks like quests and heroes don't mix together well, both tend to have stacked cards near them.

Although it wasn't written, I picture heroes nearby the drawing decks or more likely behind the back front (defensive). [ hero ] [ Pillar 1] [ Pillar 2] [ Pillar 3] That layout is identical, if not more compact, than what we used with the normal original resource piles.

Hero cards size can be chosen by player: We can supply a 1-normal-size-card-back-and-front-hero - would maybe be enough since I picture the hero only having 3-4 skills instead of my original 15 or so In addition those that prefer to can print the heroes on larger cards. A third option is to divide the hero onto 2 normal cards.... all in all, those that want to store the whole deck in one and same box and sleeve heroes will be able to do so.

[Q_x]

I'm for both approaches but believe most should be of the first type, while the last mentioned one can even be a "you-lose-the-quest-condition" for an opponent. Example: "To achieve this quest do x. For you to fail this quest opponent must do y." Possibilities are many.

I think what needs to be solidified is how does those cards behave.
Who can start a quest? For me it was clear that one side attacks it, while the other defends it - that's the approach I saw first in Shadowrun CCG, but there whole game turned around quests, so you had many cards to interrupt your enemy. I guess that's something different.
Second thing - what happens to the card after completing the quest? My guess is it is trashed. It may generate a token (CC2 example), or make a player able to do an action (trashing an enemy creature, for example).
I think we should give maximum opportunities here, but any cards should never go to the other side of a table.
Finally, why do we need to have this one creature marked doing nothing, moving cards and doing nothing, just to start the fun? I'd say mark whole "expedition team" in round 1 and resolve quest in round 2. I can hardly think of any quest that takes more time, but you gave some examples with multiple attacks, I guess it will be valid to mark a creature for whole time of pursuing a given quest, I just don' feel it. What if the creature is unmarked with magic? What if it's attacked? Or maybe it's immortal while being marked?

Yes, you're right. Thing is you were tired when you read the last paragraph(s) in the epicly lengthy text

I think I've declared my confusion right on start

I'm not sure how you conclude there would be 500 to 1000 cards around? If that's true I'm missing out on something important and I would be totally against the very notion of us releasing a core set of 500 cards, not to mention 1000. Core should be kept around 220 - 260 or something. Never, ever, ever above 300. Ever. Of the very same reason you write - it would take eons, and it would also be bad for basic balancing that we need to perfect in core both before and after release and before doing mini-expansions.

3 single currencies + 3 double currencies + 1 all currencies = 7 currency types
x 30 cards for each above flavor gives around 200. May be reduced.
x 5 factions gives 1000 base cards
+ 100 buildings/quests + 40 heroes
that's really rough, but I think saying about 500 cards in three-currency world is not exaggerated.
But if it's fixed to one currency for good, just forget about it.

My goal is still to be around the 60-limit, preferably spot on it or lower. Realistically though it leans towards 60. That's on par with most CCG:s, with the difference that we still give away our stuff.

Hero cards size can be chosen by player: We can supply a 1-normal-size-card-back-and-front-hero - would maybe be enough since I picture the hero only having 3-4 skills instead of my original 15 or so In addition those that prefer to can print the heroes on larger cards. A third option is to divide the hero onto 2 normal cards.... all in all, those that want to store the whole deck in one and same box and sleeve heroes will be able to do so.

For now the limit is more like 71 cards limit we have. 60 deck, 10 quests, 1 hero
Maybe let's have also quest cards also twice the normal size or double-sided? They might need the space to write it all down
As for sleeving - there are some big cards here and there, I'm sure there are also big sleeves. Not twice the current size, just bigger - and that's how big our cards could be. 70x110 and 80x120 are the biggest sleeves in our chart, subtract 2mm to get maximum card size. There are also games that use bigger cards - 87x112 in case of Dungeon. And there are other sleeve producers.
If we will make them in same proportions our normal cards are, one will be able to print it shrinked rather than on separate two cards.

[snowdrop]

Who can start a quest? For me it was clear that one side attacks it, while the other defends it - that's the approach I saw first in Shadowrun CCG, but there whole game turned around quests, so you had many cards to interrupt your enemy..

If you with start a Quest mean who can make an attempt to finish it and get VP:s then both players, with some limitations explained below.

If you with start a Quest mean who plays the Quest cards it's also both players, each from their QDecks, at random once the game has started.

I see the quests as a kind of an open job market: The offering is there, and whoever wants it for the terms or think he can manage it could try and accomplish the tasks that the job require. You do that and you are paid. If you fail then nothing happens, unless of course it said in the contract that something would happen (in our case it says so only in one type of Quests, the ones requiring an escrow / something being pawned)

In theory, and most of the time, any player could make an attempt to accomplish any players Quest. If P1 plays Q1 and starts Questing it I think P2 should be able to Quest Q1 as well. Whoever finishes it first wins the Quest. The other player isn't penalized though (unless escrow) for failing to resolve the Quest, at least not beyond the indirect way where his opponent got VP:s for finishing the Quest.

In practice though players would more often try to deal with their own Quest cards that they fit in their own QDeck, for apparent reasons: They created a deck that can deal with them, or vice versa - they selected some Quests because they fit the rest of their deck.

I don't want all our Quests, or even a majority, to be direct "one attacks and the other defends". Such Quests should exist and be possible without any additional headache, but I can't see any good reason for why all our Quests should work that way. A Quest can be anything, since it's only a piece of paper saying "do this [within this "time-frame"] and you get x VP:s [unless your opponent does this faster OR does whatever makes you fail this]"

I don't want whole WT to be about Quests or even 70% of the game being about them. Quests should be an option and something that makes it possible winning by VP accumulation. Quests could allow players to make a run for a more solitary experience, and against some players/decks it might work out well, while it wouldn't against others since the opposition will usually try to meddle so you fail with the Quests.

Second thing - what happens to the card after completing the quest? My guess is it is trashed. It may generate a token (CC2 example), or make a player able to do an action (trashing an enemy creature, for example).
I think we should give maximum opportunities here, but any cards should never go to the other side of a table.

You're discussing two things above: One is what happens with the Quest Card. Other is what the effects of a completed Quest could be.

1. You write that cards should never go to the other side of the table. I think that a conquered Quest card could be placed in a separate "Conquered Quests" pile next to the player that conquered them. It's an easy way of keeping score without having to write, and I would do it myself. It's proved in many games already and there is no real drawback with it other than players being reckless and shuffling in an opponents cards into his own deck. Honestly I don't care what happens with the cards afterwards and think that players could agree on it - if they want them in their owners grave then sure, why not. Then they would have to do some score keeping in another way, but they already do that for Influence so it's nothing new or troublesome.

2. The effects of Quest would usually be VP:s, but I imagine we can have 1 VP or 0 VP Quests that also have other effects on game play. They're very flexible... but for a 0 VP Quest to be worth the trouble it must be way more powerful than an instant or magic etc that does something similar.

Finally, why do we need to have this one creature marked doing nothing, moving cards and doing nothing, just to start the fun?

Interesting questions.

The creature isn't marked, nor is it doing nothing: It's assigned (180 "mark" that doesnt unmark in unmark phase.) In game world it's "busy leading the operation". In game designers world it shows that the player has engaged the Quest and is trying to solve it. This could of course be done in another way. This force the player to choose which of his creatures he'll assign to the Quest. Usually it would be the least needed one in play at the moment. It binds up that creature from becoming an attacker/defender or doing anything else in the game, and is thus a kind of minimal cost (which you can get back anytime you want by un-assigning it) you pay for attempting to solve the Quest which costed you nothing to play in the first place and which you also select yourself.

If this all poses some kind of problem we could make it much easier to accept a Quest - a player would only need to place a token of his on it. That would clearly mark that you are Questing it. I preferred to go with a card since I thought it was more elegant. We could still do so, but instead of assigning a whole creature the player could be allowed to just place any card from graveyard etc face down on his side of the table next to the quest, maybe partially beneath the quest card, freeing up space on table. All of these methods would work. I'm starting to believe you are correct though about it being better to not demand that a creature is assigned to a Quest...

I'd say mark whole "expedition team" in round 1 and resolve quest in round 2. I can hardly think of any quest that takes more time, but you gave some examples with multiple attacks, I guess it will be valid to mark a creature for whole time of pursuing a given quest, I just don' feel it.

If you mark "an expedition" it is locked down and can't do anything. For example it can't move, attack, defend nor use it's abilities. We wouldn't be able to create Quests that built on any of them, and them never being part of Quests is a dealbreaker for me. It also makes it harder to design Quests. Quests for me can't just be mark-4-creatures-congrats!

I also am against the idea of locking up a crew into an expedition: Doing so will take away the potentiality of that crew from the rest of the game. Compare the situation: "P1's C1 and C2 are in an expedition, i know they can't attack me next turn." with "P1's C1 & C2 could be used in his quest next turn, just like he did his previous turn, or he could end up defending with C1 and maybe attacking me with C2... will he do that or will he continue focusing on Quest?"

We get more flexibility, on both sides, if we allow any players creature to come and go as they want in relations to a Quest. I picture it like the player, one he has accepted a Quest, can use C1 and/or C2 to start the Quest in turn 1, and maybe wrap it all up with C3 if he wanted to on turn 2. By doing it like that we don't make Quests lock up too many creatures and people can also adapt the forces they will invest into Questing depending on the oppositions reactions.

As you wrote, I do imagine some Quests to take more than the players single turn it accepts the Quest on: If they don't, then Quests will drop in interactivity between the players and the oppositions will never really have a fair chance of reacting by either a) interference and/or b) trying to complete the Quest as well. For that reason alone it might be a good thing to add a rule stating that

Code: Select all

Accepting a Quest allows you to start achieving it's goals on your next turn.

Confrontations, a subtype of Quests, are these big ugly bosses with HP. They will be around for a couple of turns probably. Now that I see this it is vital to add that they are treated as separate instances for each player, so the half-dead enemy Titan I struggled with can't be killed of by one of your weak creatures and you snatch my VP:s.

What if the creature is unmarked with magic? What if it's attacked? Or maybe it's immortal while being marked?

I think we should probably move away from the assigning-of-a-single-creature to get a shot at the Quest. (If we would use it then the creature would be assigned. Assigned creatures can't attack nor block. If it's targeted by magic and dies it dies. However, the Quest would still be ongoing as usual.)

For now the limit is more like 71 cards limit we have. 60 deck, 10 quests, 1 hero
Maybe let's have also quest cards also twice the normal size or double-sided? They might need the space to write it all down

No, in my reply and comparison with MtG I included the Quests and Hero in the deck. It would be more like 49 active cards + 1 hero + 10 quests = 60.... or 50 + 10 quests, keeping the hero separate = 61.

Let's lay with the thought that you have just that, 50 + 10 Quests. Also that every magic, equipment and creature exists in the deck the max number of times, which is 4. That still gives us 12 different cards in the deck, all maxed out, with a probability of 4/(50-14) = 11,1% of drawing a specific one of them either the first hand or on the mulligan. You would however have a probability of 100% of getting enough active cards and resources, in contrast to MtG.

[Q_x]

I think it's enough explanations and questions. No more remarks and it's all clear.
Thank you for your time and I feel like you're looking forward to see me trolling in the second thread here.