I'm not sure I understand the significance of fronts in this game?
A player may choose to attack or move during a turn. Given that he isn't able to attack after moving, the second player could simply move a creature to the other front and defend his kingdom. If he doesn't have enough creatures to occupy both fronts, then the end result is no different than if the other player frist destroyed the existing creature and attacked directly.
Given that an attack in an undefended front causes an immediate decresae in influence, constantly moving between front makes for a failed exit strategy, and thus players are forced to contantly occupy the invaded front(s).
The only way I can see to add value to the mechanic would be to 1) force a player to attack a creature if it exists in the same front (in turn removing the ability to refuse to block with a creature) 2) introduce an 'retreat' action that would replace the ability to decline to block and would move that creature to the other front 3) make it so that should a player decide to retreate a creature, that creature would not be able to attack next turn.
I'm no convinced that the 3 points outlined above are a suitable replacement, but at the same time, I'm not convinced that fronts serve a strategic purpose.
What purpose do fronts serve?
Re: What purpose do fronts serve?
how fronts work
(This is probably not clear in the rules and has to be worked out way better than currently)
90 - 95% of all effects and abilities etc will all be local to a front. Whatever the card does, it only happens within the realm of the given front.
This brings some thinking into the game as you always have to make choices as to where to spend your cards/effects - usually you'd end up with very different results depending on what you have in your front(s) already, but that must also be weighted against what the opponent(s) have in their fronts.
spatial: attack / defence
Since attacking creatures in a front can only be met up by defenders of that same front it brings the need to do some planning to successfully attack the opponent, but also to manage your own defence in each front. How you position your creatures will create new threats and/or open up new weaknesses or strengths in your fronts.
adding or not?
What I want to do is to exploit the strategy that the spatial aspect can bring to a game, and that is usually not used in CCG:s. I'd claim that less than 20-30% of the CCG:s out there use it in a meaningful way.
There is an apparent limit to how far spatiality can be pushed in a CCG given it is cumbersome/hard to move cards around on a table all of the time, and also due to their size put in relation to a normal mid-sized kitchen table, game length and so on.
In general I think it's a very bad idea to try to create a miniatures game that is played with flat cards as those found in CCG:s. The media is simply wrong and unpractical for several reasons. A mini game should be played with 3d-objects, not flat ones, even if it is possible and doable with 2d ones.
What I have tried to do is ask myself if there is a point where spatiality can be turned into something that matters and is well integrated into a ccg and where it also adds strategical depth without making it too cumbersome, complex or filled with fiddly administration.
From the beginning I had very optimistic thoughts on how far it could be pushed. Now I'm more careful and I openly admit the limitations we have to deal with, yet I still believe that a bare minimum spatial system like the one I suggest now with two fronts could most likely work out and that it is sufficient to bring strategical depth.
In my mind it's apparent how this would work out, but given we haven't done enough concept testing yet I won't vouch for it's greatness quite yet.
I'm not sure I followed your thoughts or if I actually answered your questions though...?
(This is probably not clear in the rules and has to be worked out way better than currently)
- Phases x and y are parts of a players turn. X and y can be used to either attack or move around creature(s), but never both during the same phase.
- You can't assign both phases to the same action: E.g. you may not attack / attack or move / move.
- When moving your creatures mark (and only unmarked creatures may move in the first place).
- To defend against an attack the player whos turn it is not must assign one or more defending creatures to an attacker. These creatures are just called "defenders" (e.g. blockers in MtG terminology).
- Only unmarked creatures may defend (or attack for that matter).
90 - 95% of all effects and abilities etc will all be local to a front. Whatever the card does, it only happens within the realm of the given front.
This brings some thinking into the game as you always have to make choices as to where to spend your cards/effects - usually you'd end up with very different results depending on what you have in your front(s) already, but that must also be weighted against what the opponent(s) have in their fronts.
spatial: attack / defence
Since attacking creatures in a front can only be met up by defenders of that same front it brings the need to do some planning to successfully attack the opponent, but also to manage your own defence in each front. How you position your creatures will create new threats and/or open up new weaknesses or strengths in your fronts.
adding or not?
What I want to do is to exploit the strategy that the spatial aspect can bring to a game, and that is usually not used in CCG:s. I'd claim that less than 20-30% of the CCG:s out there use it in a meaningful way.
There is an apparent limit to how far spatiality can be pushed in a CCG given it is cumbersome/hard to move cards around on a table all of the time, and also due to their size put in relation to a normal mid-sized kitchen table, game length and so on.
In general I think it's a very bad idea to try to create a miniatures game that is played with flat cards as those found in CCG:s. The media is simply wrong and unpractical for several reasons. A mini game should be played with 3d-objects, not flat ones, even if it is possible and doable with 2d ones.
What I have tried to do is ask myself if there is a point where spatiality can be turned into something that matters and is well integrated into a ccg and where it also adds strategical depth without making it too cumbersome, complex or filled with fiddly administration.
From the beginning I had very optimistic thoughts on how far it could be pushed. Now I'm more careful and I openly admit the limitations we have to deal with, yet I still believe that a bare minimum spatial system like the one I suggest now with two fronts could most likely work out and that it is sufficient to bring strategical depth.
In my mind it's apparent how this would work out, but given we haven't done enough concept testing yet I won't vouch for it's greatness quite yet.
I'm not sure I followed your thoughts or if I actually answered your questions though...?
Re: What purpose do fronts serve?
You didn't exactly answer my question. The question wasn't about how to use them or how they should be utilized in theory, but whether or not they are useful in practice. Before I address your comments one by one, I'd like to say I like the general concept of the spactial dynamic, but am not confident that its current implementation is a solid one.
how fronts work:
- If I understand this, the following would be a correct scenario
- player has 3 creatures in one front
- player moves 2 of those creatures to a separate front and marks them
- player attacks with the final creature
Opponent may then
- move from one front to the newly occupied front, which prevents them from attacking, giving the advantage to the first player
- continue to overload the original front with more creatures and attack (didn't pay attention, but there didn't seem to be a summoning sickness mechanic)
- if there is summoning sickness, the orignal player keeps the upper hand in that front as well, unless he is outnumbered
Given such a scenario, it doesn't seem so advantageous to move a card from one front to another. If moving marks a card, then preventing it from becoming a defender, then the whole move seems pointless.
Or, from a different angle, it seems to be in the best interest to keep an even number of creatures in each front to prevent a rush, which, unless I have misunderstood something, decresaes the number of effective strategies a player may use, rather than enhancing the strategic properties of the game.
I'm speculating of course, an actual play test might reveal that I am misunderstanding the rules as they are written.
how fronts work:
- If I understand this, the following would be a correct scenario
- player has 3 creatures in one front
- player moves 2 of those creatures to a separate front and marks them
- player attacks with the final creature
Opponent may then
- move from one front to the newly occupied front, which prevents them from attacking, giving the advantage to the first player
- continue to overload the original front with more creatures and attack (didn't pay attention, but there didn't seem to be a summoning sickness mechanic)
- if there is summoning sickness, the orignal player keeps the upper hand in that front as well, unless he is outnumbered
Given such a scenario, it doesn't seem so advantageous to move a card from one front to another. If moving marks a card, then preventing it from becoming a defender, then the whole move seems pointless.
Or, from a different angle, it seems to be in the best interest to keep an even number of creatures in each front to prevent a rush, which, unless I have misunderstood something, decresaes the number of effective strategies a player may use, rather than enhancing the strategic properties of the game.
I'm speculating of course, an actual play test might reveal that I am misunderstanding the rules as they are written.
Re: What purpose do fronts serve?
Honestly, I wouldn't know: The concept hasn't been tested nearly enough to draw a conclusion. At the same time I also imagine that whatever is sound in theory has a greater chance of success in practiceaspidites wrote:You didn't exactly answer my question. The question wasn't about how to use them or how they should be utilized in theory, but whether or not they are useful in practice
But let's play with the thoughts here:
Movement is only possible during your own turn, meaning that you can't ever move a creature while being the "defending player". (Not sure what you meant with "opponent may then", just being extra clear here that "may then" must be on P2's own turn after P1:s attack, and not while it is defending against P1's attack.)- player attacks with the final creature
Opponent may then
- move from one front to the newly occupied front, which prevents them from attacking, giving the advantage to the first player
I don't quite understand what you mean with "overload" a front. About the summoning sickness: Yes, it will be there and should be there already somewhere in the rules. If not, it should be put in. It has been my intention to have it all the time and I think it's vital for several reasons. The only thing that isn't clear is if it can be made to operate "smoother" in some sense than the MtG one. (E.g. questions like "should we only allow creatures to be played in the last phase of the turn after all movement and attacks have occured?" need good answers...)- continue to overload the original front with more creatures and attack (didn't pay attention, but there didn't seem to be a summoning sickness mechanic)
I don't follow how/in what way P1 has the advantage in F1 (which is the "original front" as I think you dubbed it, where P1 started out with all three of his creatures).- if there is summoning sickness, the orignal player keeps the upper hand in that front as well, unless he is outnumbered
P1 has 3 creatures in F1. He moves 2 of those to F2. He now has only 1 creature left in F1, and he attacks with that. (P2 either defends or lets it drain.) End of turn.
P2:s turn now. P2 can do whatever he wants - move around stuff if it makes sense, or not if it doesn't. He can play creatures directly into whatever front he wants. He could also attack in perhaps F2 where P1 has 2 marked creatures (the ones that moved during P1's turn) that can't be used to defend with.
In short, I don't see the problem here or in what way P2 is limited in any way at all that he normally wouldn't be in a game with only one single front.
I see. Yeah, it would be pointless if the player believes that the point with a move is to jump between fronts and defend/attack like crazy, anywhere, anytime. Movement is not implemented to allow that and it shouldn't be either if you ask me. Part of the reason is that movement would lose much of it's significance if it was to work that way, and also what I believe makes it strategically interesting and makes it worth having in the first place.Given such a scenario, it doesn't seem so advantageous to move a card from one front to another. If moving marks a card, then preventing it from becoming a defender, then the whole move seems pointless.
Movement is more about positioning and building tactics/strategies that usually go beyond 1-2 turns. If I move a creature to a front I don't do it with the hopes of using it as a blocker during my opponents next turn: I do so with the hopes of using it somehow in that front the turn(s) after that one. This all demands some planning from the players, and it also gives them a chance to start reacting to their opponents move, in contrast to "more instant moving solutions".
I agree and think you're right.Or, from a different angle, it seems to be in the best interest to keep an even number of creatures in each front to prevent a rush, which, unless I have misunderstood something, decresaes the number of effective strategies a player may use, rather than enhancing the strategic properties of the game.
Then again - it's already true in any CCG that you often want to at the very least match your opponents strength, isn't it? I mean, this critique doesn't really target the front system as it is. It's more a thought about the meta game in any CCG, as I interpret it.
Let's look at MtG as an example here: If you have many creatures, which you need to rush, you have usually dedicated low amounts of resources per creature to be able to amass that many. Usually they are weak. If they're strong, you can't gather that many of them, since you wouldn't be able to afford the costs or build up a quick rush early in the game.
So, rushes are usually only made with weak creatures, and it's also a risky strategy if the opponent survives the rush as it will often set you back and pave way for a weaker mid/end game.
The way a slow deck/player has to deal with rushes is usually one where he has something that generates life (in MtG terminology, here it's "influence"), something that can easily kill weak creatures by dealing 1 in damage to them or something that is almost equally cheap and used primarily only to defend with. A slow player would know that his deck is slow. He also knows he runs the risk he'd face a speedy player, and usually includes some safeguard against that.
I don't know - did you?I'm speculating of course, an actual play test might reveal that I am misunderstanding the rules as they are written.
I think it's good with questions/thoughts like these as they could very well prove to unveil real problems...Re: What purpose do fronts serve?
I'm a bit drained, so forgive the lack of specificity in my reply.
I understand that movement only happens during ones own turn, but given the act of marking after movement, it seems that by the time you are able to unmark the card for attack, the opponent would have already regrouped, or gotten a free attack if the area was already occupied (marked cards may not block).
Most of your points make sense, and I appreciate the explanations. In the end though, I think my mind will refuse to wrap itself around the concept until I've play tested it.
BTW, sorry if the thread title seemed condecending or pretentious.
I understand that movement only happens during ones own turn, but given the act of marking after movement, it seems that by the time you are able to unmark the card for attack, the opponent would have already regrouped, or gotten a free attack if the area was already occupied (marked cards may not block).
Most of your points make sense, and I appreciate the explanations. In the end though, I think my mind will refuse to wrap itself around the concept until I've play tested it.
BTW, sorry if the thread title seemed condecending or pretentious.
Re: What purpose do fronts serve?
It's hard playtesting it without cards that do more than just move and attack/defend...or maybe it's doable? We could try below, or in a new thread. Show me what you mean will happen.aspidites wrote: Most of your points make sense, and I appreciate the explanations. In the end though, I think my mind will refuse to wrap itself around the concept until I've play tested it.
I think it's a good title that asks a straight forward question. If it can't be answered then we're in a pile of poopageBTW, sorry if the thread title seemed condecending or pretentious.
P1, turn 1: What does P1 do?
Re: What purpose do fronts serve?
Given that a moved creature must be marked, it dosn't seem to make sense for p1 to move any cards from the left to the right, since, on p2's turn, p1 will still only have 1 card to defend with.
P1 would probably move the one card to the left. While he wouldn't be able to attack wit hthat card, he already has the advantage for this turn. While p2 could move his other 2 cards to the left as well, with p1's 3 cards there initially, he could wipe out the original p2 cards. While p2 could refuse to block, he'd only lose initiative.
Actually, that last point makes me wonder why it is even possible to refuse to block in the first place?
P1 would probably move the one card to the left. While he wouldn't be able to attack wit hthat card, he already has the advantage for this turn. While p2 could move his other 2 cards to the left as well, with p1's 3 cards there initially, he could wipe out the original p2 cards. While p2 could refuse to block, he'd only lose initiative.
Actually, that last point makes me wonder why it is even possible to refuse to block in the first place?
Re: What purpose do fronts serve?
Yeah, true, but only for the next turn. After that P1 will have x more creatures to defend with, where x is the amount of creatures he moved over from one front to another. That's also what movement requires of the players - to try think ahead, more than just one turn at the time. This is intentionally so that movement can't ever come as an immediate reaction and to make sure the game doesn't get too much movement of creatures between fronts. (Such a game is better played using miniatures...)aspidites wrote:Given that a moved creature must be marked, it dosn't seem to make sense for p1 to move any cards from the left to the right, since, on p2's turn, p1 will still only have 1 card to defend with.
I'm not sure I follow: If P1 moves 1d to F1, he leaves his whole F2 open for an attack, which will probably not be a good thing a all.P1 would probably move the one card to the left. While he wouldn't be able to attack wit hthat card, he already has the advantage for this turn. While p2 could move his other 2 cards to the left as well, with p1's 3 cards there initially, he could wipe out the original p2 cards. While p2 could refuse to block, he'd only lose initiative.
It is an inherent result of the indirect combat system (meaning, Px announces attackers, Py announces defenders). If you can't choose to not include a creature in a fight and if all creatures are forced to defend then creatures would die all the time. You end up getting a high card throughput, larger decks, etc. Only way to mend that that is known to me is to star tracking creature HP, which I am totally against since it brings plenty of admin and would suck crap since you also have creatures that move around on the table. So...Actually, that last point makes me wonder why it is even possible to refuse to block in the first place?
