Terminology II

Only post if you have actually read them and the design document(s) in the Wiki.
Post Reply
User avatar
Erundil
Posts: 64
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2011 23:36

Terminology II

Post by Erundil » Thu May 30, 2013 00:28

[if you felt that I have questioned enough, well, prepare for more!]

Somedays ago I wrote down a list of all the cards I could find: cards page, forum, subversiva.org, lackey plugin, GCCG plugin.

So, I ended up having ideas on the terminology.

Opposite front: the opposite front refers to the opponent's offensive front if is used from the defensive front, and to the opponent's defensive if used from the offensive.

Unit: instead of creature, as creature is a term bluntly taken from mtg. In wtactics such cards would be better reffered as 'units'.

Kingdom: instead of Army Deck, because having two fronts it would make more sense and sound better if you drew cards from a 'Kingdom', searched your Kingdom for a unit or a resource.

Target: another one taken bluntly from Mtg. I do not have a nice solution for this one, although I have seen other games using 'pick', which I do not think suitable. 'Choose' is another option too.

And that's all I can remember/come up with for now.
User avatar
snowdrop
developer
Posts: 794
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2010 15:25
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Re: Terminology II

Post by snowdrop » Sun Jun 02, 2013 12:52

Opposite front: the opposite front refers to the opponent's offensive front if is used from the defensive front, and to the opponent's defensive if used from the offensive.
Spatially there are only two "places" where the creatures can be. Your attackers and the opponents defenders are in the same "land/place". They share space. And vice versa. That means that there are no opposite fronts in the way you suggest (which would also mean that there are 4 places alltogether).

It is possible to do it your way also, but I think it adds unwarranted complexity: Whatever can be achieved in a 4-zone system as you suggest can also be achieved in the one I describe with just 2 "places".
Unit: instead of creature, as creature is a term bluntly taken from mtg. In wtactics such cards would be better reffered as 'units'.
"Creature" is an English word which WotC don't own or have invented. It is commonly used in the english language to point out when something is alive and has a will of it's own.

Many have suggested using "unit". I am not sure how many times that word occurs in fantasy worlds, and it if it thematically actually has way stronger links to a sci-fi setting than a fantasy one. That is probably my main objection of the use of it.

(Also, "unit" suggests it is always something that is a part of a system, often military or other organizational model, and a random monster showing up is hard to place in such a structure. This is a very weak argument though and can be explained away if needed)

We could rename "creature" type to something else, but questions is what is shorter and more apparent than unit without sounding sci-fi and if unit really would be good or not... I'm sure there are several threads about it here in forum that should perhaps be merged...
Kingdom: instead of Army Deck, because having two fronts it would make more sense and sound better if you drew cards from a 'Kingdom', searched your Kingdom for a unit or a resource.
You will never have to search for resources - as long as you have a card in your hand you always have a potential resources, should you choose to use it that way.

I agree we can come up with something better than "army deck". Not sure Kingdom is it though, you also have equipment, events, enchantments and what not.. hrm...
Target: another one taken bluntly from Mtg. I do not have a nice solution for this one, although I have seen other games using 'pick', which I do not think suitable. 'Choose' is another option too.
The suggested solutions are inferior. "Target" and "targeted" are excellent words that also are easy to understand and fill their function excellent without generating excessive text. Revisit the issue if/when you come up with an alternative that is as obvious and shorter, and we'll change it then.
User avatar
Erundil
Posts: 64
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2011 23:36

Re: Terminology II

Post by Erundil » Mon Jun 03, 2013 05:39

Spatially there are only two "places" where the creatures can be. Your attackers and the opponents defenders are in the same "land/place". They share space. And vice versa. That means that there are no opposite fronts in the way you suggest (which would also mean that there are 4 places alltogether).
I fought creatues where supposed to fight, not party together :mrgreen:
any have suggested using "unit". I am not sure how many times that word occurs in fantasy worlds, and it if it thematically actually has way stronger links to a sci-fi setting than a fantasy one. That is probably my main objection of the use of it.
Magic uses creature because the player is supposed to be a mage. And indeed in earlier editions, you actually summon them, and once they are you call them creatures.

In wtactics, you are supposed to be a sort of commander/strategist, hence unit would be more appropriate. Creatures, in wtactics, would leave to think that they just showed up randomly and decided to beat the crap out of each other, in teams.
You will never have to search for resources - as long as you have a card in your hand you always have a potential resources, should you choose to use it that way.

I agree we can come up with something better than "army deck". Not sure Kingdom is it though, you also have equipment, events, enchantments and what not.. hrm...
Well, unless equipment magically appear out of nothing, they will be stored somewhere. Probably inside the Kingdom, although an idiotic/genius commander might decide to store them outside the kingdom.

For spells, there might be mages somewhere inside the Kingdom and cast long-range spells. How awesome is that?

Kingdom is a very good term for wtactics now. We could use nation or state, but they do not really sound right.
Post Reply