New rule concept: [VSR] Very Simple Rules

Only post if you have actually read them and the design document(s) in the Wiki.
User avatar
xarn
Posts: 101
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2011 11:50

New rule concept: [VSR] Very Simple Rules

Post by xarn » Sun Apr 17, 2016 08:47

Hi,

...I know, I know ...why do we need yet another rule concept? We already have thousands of lines to read with the others!!!

Well, exactly because of that! Let's face it: most of us are lazy! So here are some simple rules, yet very unique, for those who are interested.

Since I don't have access to the wiki yet, I've put it here:

https://github.com/dagnelies/wtactics-l ... r/rules.md
User avatar
Peter
Posts: 96
Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2014 20:13
Location: Germany

Re: New rule concept: [VSR] Very Simple Rules

Post by Peter » Sun Apr 17, 2016 09:40

Wow! Your rules are short! I like them! Fast and easy to understand.
They are even much shorter than mine (CRC).
Kind regards and happy coding :)
ngoeminne
Posts: 250
Joined: Mon Feb 29, 2016 15:34

Re: New rule concept: [VSR] Very Simple Rules

Post by ngoeminne » Sun Apr 17, 2016 10:06

Hey Xarn,

Nice rule set, and should be fun to play. They do offer a quick and simple gameplay.
There is less going on, and there are (I think) less considerations/decisions for a player to make.

However, there are a lot of assumptions in the ruleset, such as the card's layout, the types, etc...

I know snowdrop feels that the end result should be one 'official' rule set, to have one recognizable game. I however feel that there could be multiple rule sets (formats). And such a straight forward one could be one of them.

Nice work.
Kind regards,
Nico
ngoeminne
Posts: 250
Joined: Mon Feb 29, 2016 15:34

Re: New rule concept: [VSR] Very Simple Rules

Post by ngoeminne » Mon Apr 18, 2016 18:03

Hey xarn,

There are some things about the VSR rules that aren't clear to me.

The buildings start face down on the table. How do you play them? Just turn them face up?

The rules state, that the number of creatures are dependent on the number of buildings.
And you don't 'pay' anything, so you don't have expensive - cheep cards, but how can you have then stronger/weaker cards? If it doesn't matter how much they cost, I'll only build a deck with the strongest cards.

Also I feel that decisions made by a player are not really important.
e.g. the decision "should I attack or not" doesn't matter to much, because you are still able to defend with attacking creatures (the opponent's turn).

How do you think the player's tempo compare? I think it's very symmetrical, each turn a player will have the same number of buildings, hence the same number of creatures, hence the same buildup.

You've also removed the act-react-react chain for events, I'm not sure how that will work.
Say you have both an event card, one that deals 3 damage, one that heals 3 damage, and you play it on a 2/2 creature. In your case, when the effect is direct, there's no gameplay.

I also see little chance to turn-the-tables (but I could be wrong). If you start losing one or two buildings, it takes away your power to put new stuff out and it brings you closer to defeat. This kind of double punishment is very harsh. (the reason why MTG is often very exciting is that you can have situations where your close to death, but far away from defeat)

All that being said, I think your gameplay has merit, but more in e.g. a situation where players have the same deck, e.g. think of a Napoleonic - Wellington battle, with cavalry, gunners, lancers, infantry...

However, I encourage you (and Peter) to keep developing the ruleset, and maybe counter some of my arguments/my line of thinking.

Kind regards,
Nico
User avatar
xarn
Posts: 101
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2011 11:50

Re: New rule concept: [VSR] Very Simple Rules

Post by xarn » Mon Apr 18, 2016 19:33

> There are some things about the VSR rules that aren't clear to me.

Ok, good to know where I should clarify things.

> The buildings start face down on the table. How do you play them? Just turn them face up?

Actually, building are plain normal cards that you draw from your deck, have in your hand and play on the table. The seven starting face down cards are just placeholders at the start because you won't start "dead". Remember, buildings are also "lives". When you build a building, you just discard a face down card in exchange.

> The rules state, that the number of creatures are dependent on the number of buildings.
> And you don't 'pay' anything, so you don't have expensive - cheep cards, but how can you have then
> stronger/weaker cards? If it doesn't matter how much they cost, I'll only build a deck with the
> strongest cards.

...yeah, that was badly explained from me. Some buildings produce gold. For example, a farm with +1 and a gold mine with +3.
So, with +4 gold, you can have troops on the battle that have a cumulative cost of up to 4. It's not a "hiring" cost, it's a "maintenance" cost.

> Also I feel that decisions made by a player are not really important.
> e.g. the decision "should I attack or not" doesn't matter to much, because you are still able to defend with attacking creatures (the opponent's turn).

It favors attacking. Not doing so is probably often a disadvantage ...but it may depend on the cards. However, it increases the decisions/tactics you can apply since you can choose which troops you attack and in what order. It's not the "simple" "I attack" of MTG.

> How do you think the player's tempo compare? I think it's very symmetrical, each turn a player
> will have the same number of buildings, hence the same number of creatures, hence the same
> buildup.

Well, I guess this is cleared up with my explanations above. I think a game can quickly progress very differently depending on player's deck and how it plays out. I honestly don't fear any symmetry effect, IMHO it provides more diversity potential than MTG.

> You've also removed the act-react-react chain for events, I'm not sure how that will work.
> Say you have both an event card, one that deals 3 damage, one that heals 3 damage, and you play > it on a 2/2 creature. In your case, when the effect is direct, there's no gameplay.

Sure, the creature will die. ;) It simply changes from a "reactive" gameplay to a "preventive" gameplay ("Hmmm... I should probably buff its defense before I attack because he'll want to block with that one") ...and well, it just removes the complexity of the aweful MTG "counter chains": "I counter the counter of the counter of the counter... of your counter spell! mouhaha".

> I also see little chance to turn-the-tables (but I could be wrong). If you start losing one or
> two buildings, it takes away your power to put new stuff out and it brings you closer to defeat.
> This kind of double punishment is very harsh. (the reason why MTG is often very exciting is that
> you can have situations where your close to death, but far away from defeat)

Honestly, I've no idea, only playtesting it could tell. As a comment, if the enemy destroyed a building, it means you have no more troops on the battlefield. In this case, the limiting factor is more the 2 cards you draw at your turn than the lost building(s).

I think though that the dynamics will be very different. It's hard to tell. If the enemy overpowers you, it'll quickly end. However, if you find a way to block well enough for a few turns, you could recover completely.

...as a last note, what I fear more is that ranged attacks mechanics. A few archers might turn into a problem because they'd just kill new opposing troops without harm. But that's perhaps also interesting because it forces the player to build decks with appropriate spells/troops/buildings to face these situations.
User avatar
Peter
Posts: 96
Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2014 20:13
Location: Germany

Re: New rule concept: [VSR] Very Simple Rules

Post by Peter » Tue Apr 19, 2016 19:41

1.) I don't like the facedown building cards Xarn mentioned.

2.) Should we have a Gold stack/deck?

3.) I don't think that these VSR rules fit only for same-deck games. (But if they do, I would not like that.)

4.) Maybe we don't allow Heal Cards but only allow pre-attack protection cards?

5.) EDIT It's already in VSR

6.) I agree with Nico that big cards should be more expensive.

7.) We could introduce a maximum value of allowed military power, in other words: The sum of all ATK and DEF could have a maximum value. (Warhammer-tabletop style.)

8.) I don't see why the react chain is important, I even think it may make the game slow, complicated and tiring. But maybe I'm wrong on this.

9.) About attacking AND defending with the same card Nico may be right.

10.) A question from me is: How much of a strategy/civilization game do we want to have? I sure want somthing different than Magic. But I'm not sure if I want a board game. But don't misunderstand me: I think we haven't reached a board game (style) by far.

EDIT: 11.) Building after all buildings are destroyed is a bad idea imho.
12.) The exception from the "Draw 2" rule for the game start should be removed.

13.) Quote from VSR: "Alice first attack with her two 1/1 archers, targetting Bob's 2/2 Orc and kills it." Why doesn't the archers die? Or did you mean they die (but are unimportant)?

14.) How many attacks can a player and a card do per turn?
Kind regards and happy coding :)
User avatar
xarn
Posts: 101
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2011 11:50

Re: New rule concept: [VSR] Very Simple Rules

Post by xarn » Tue Apr 19, 2016 21:50

Hi Peter,

From ngoeminne's and your remarks, I guess there is some confusion about buildings, so I've editted the rules to (hopefully) clarify it. I think many other answers are also in the rules themselves, not just about buildings, just re-read them carefully. I hope this slightly enhanced version is clearer.
User avatar
Peter
Posts: 96
Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2014 20:13
Location: Germany

Re: New rule concept: [VSR] Very Simple Rules

Post by Peter » Tue Apr 19, 2016 22:14

We don't need placeholders in the buildings area. Or?

I see now: Gold is only calculated per turn. There is no way to gather gold for later use. (That's good.)

And big cards cost more gold than little ones. That's as it should be.

Xarn, you don't allow healing after an attack, right? Only resurrection.

In the attacking chapter:
a) I still don't don't like that creatures may attack several times in one turn. Or I didn't understand the mechanism.
b) Why not remove the Shamans automatically without a fight when the troll blocker is killed?
c) I still wonder why the two 1/1 archers aren't killed in the first attack.

A player who lost all buildings shouldn't be allowed to build a new one.
Kind regards and happy coding :)
User avatar
xarn
Posts: 101
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2011 11:50

Re: New rule concept: [VSR] Very Simple Rules

Post by xarn » Wed Apr 20, 2016 07:16

> We don't need placeholders in the buildings area. Or?

Well, without placeholder buildings, you would start "dead" ...isn't it a bit troublesome? ;)

> I see now: Gold is only calculated per turn. There is no way to gather gold for later use. (That's good.) And big cards cost more gold than little ones. That's as it should be.

Exactly

> Xarn, you don't allow healing after an attack, right? Only resurrection.

Hmmm... here it's like MTG, creatures have no "hit points". If the attack kills it, it's dead, otherwise no harm is done to it.

> a) I still don't don't like that creatures may attack several times in one turn. Or I didn't understand the mechanism.

One more thing I should clarify. Each troop can attack at most once per turn.

> b) Why not remove the Shamans automatically without a fight when the troll blocker is killed?

...I don't get it

> c) I still wonder why the two 1/1 archers aren't killed in the first attack.

See https://github.com/dagnelies/wtactics-l ... ee--ranged
"A ranged attacker, on the other hand, only deals damage, but does not get hit."

> A player who lost all buildings shouldn't be allowed to build a new one.

A player who lost all its buildings has lost the game! This is mentionned at least three times in the rules! ;)
User avatar
Peter
Posts: 96
Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2014 20:13
Location: Germany

Re: New rule concept: [VSR] Very Simple Rules

Post by Peter » Wed Apr 20, 2016 13:30

1.)
xarn wrote:> We don't need placeholders in the buildings area. Or?

Well, without placeholder buildings, you would start "dead" ...isn't it a bit troublesome? ;)
We could start with a city placed in the building area at the game start. Or maybe 4 of them.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
2.)
> b) Why not remove the Shamans automatically without a fight when the troll blocker is killed?

...I don't get it
I quote your VSR:
Perfect, now Bob's front row is empty, Alice can use her remaing two soldiers to attack Bob's shamans in his back row.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
3.)
>> A player who lost all buildings shouldn't be allowed to build a new one.

A player who lost all its buildings has lost the game! This is mentionned at least three times in the rules! ;)
I quote your VSR:
If all buildings are destroyed, you win the game. Notice that the enemy can still build new buildings afterwards and might still turn the table.
Kind regards and happy coding :)
Post Reply