Do we need equipment cards at all?

[Q_x]

If yes - do we need 100% faction-specific items?

My thoughts and conclusions:

Equipment is easy to produce, easy to illustrate, easy to test. It's hard to invent, but that's yet another story. But it's excess we can easily add later - for example as an expansion pack, or during beta > gamma transition. We're focused on creatures and events anyway - or we were as long as CS was online.

I think over 90% of all equipment that exist across literature, movies etc can be reused among same-class creatures - magic orb can be used by good and evil sorcerer, big axe is just as good in any warrior's hands and so on. I understand some things - like underwater stuff - would be used by merman only, or giant won't fit into dwarfish armor. But that's about all I could invent.

What do you think?

[snowdrop]

excessive?
Equipment has different rules from any other card type. For example, it can be inherited/picked up when a creature dies. It can also be re-assigned.

I think that makes equipment very flexible and interesting as it could accumulate on the able if correctly played, even if it has some limitations when it comes to how much of it a creature can use. All in all, I'd say it adds something that isn't added by anything else. Especially if each faction also has access to it's own category of it through he factioned equipment.

unfactioned is central
That said, I imagine a low percentage of the total of all equipment to be factioned. Reason is too much facioned cards, no matter what type, will fragment the game and lower card compatibility, and we don't want that. For the core set I think it would be perfectly ok with just 1 max 2 factioned equipments per faction, and even some factions that lack it altogether.

how to invent?
As for inventing equipment and the associated hardships, I am not sure I understand what you mean: What is hard with inventing new equipment? MtG has 155(!) equipment cards. As you can see >> http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Searc ... d&subtype=+[%22Equipment%22] there is pleny of variation achieved mainly by making equipment carry over abilities to it's carrier. Even if 33% of the equipment in MtG is crap for some reason or another, and I think that number is more like 15 - 25%, it seems still very possible to invent plenty of Equipment.

My main worry when it comes to the creation of Equipment is what differentiates it from Enchantments, both rule wise but also in specific details, and how it should be priced in comparison. Let's make it simple for the sake of he discussion and just look at a trivial example:

Code: Select all

Equipment - Dwarvish Axe
User gets +2/+0.

Enchantment - Juxta Strength 
User gets +2/+0.

What would the Equipment cost, and what would the enchantment cost? Seems to me the Equipment should be something like double the price or at least 33% more expensive since the enchanment follows its creaure in the grave, can't be re-assigned or re-used, while the equipment can.

usability
Most equipment would be usable by anyone in any faction, while some would be factioned. I don't think that we as a standard should make equipment creature type specific, for the same reason it shouldn't all be factioned.

depiction?
The way we (I?) have done equipment this far is to depict the equipment itself, isolated from it's user/usage scenario. I think that is the worst way possible to show equipment aesthetically. Only benefit it has is to lower costs for me with 30 - 50%, but else I am not sure I see many advantages with it. MtG has, unsurprisingly, a mixture of both.

Personally I have serious problems with coming up with creative, dynamic, ways of showing equipment on a card and am quite happy you are in charge of that instead That said, I think we should not let the budget considerations here force us to create equipment cards that look boring: I'd rather pay for better looking ones, a least as long as it is within current "normal" price ranges for us.

[Q_x]

Let's keep eqipment if so.

If MtG for 11k cards has only 150 equipment, I'd say it's not much. Keeping this proportions, we'll have 1/2 card per faction

Offtopic:

If you want to differentiate +2/0 card with 33% accuracy - that is one has to have it's cost at least 2, and the other - 3. How much would plain 2/0 creature cost then? 4? How much resources should one accumulate to play a creature like 4/3 + ability? 6? 7?

[aspidites]

Just a couple of thoughts.

In differentiating enchantments from equipment, you could make equipment have some sort of physical penalty. The logic being that carrying physical equipment tends to hamper its user in some degree, where as the very nature of enchantments don't. For example:

- A two-handed broadsword or a large ax are heavy, so you could either lower defense, add some kind of "status" element to the card which conveys a sense of slowness
- Such weapons also tend to grow dull, so you could add an upkeep requirement that, for example, decreases the effectiveness of the weapon over time or requires the player to discard it if they can't.
- I imagine certain factions would be against the use of magic, or too weak to carry equipment, so it may make sense to have a limited number of either in these kinds of factions, which would prevent such conflict.
- Certain equipment can be made disposable in order to limit its lifetime - for example, rations, first aid kits, etc.

[snowdrop]

If MtG for 11k cards has only 150 equipment, I'd say it's not much. Keeping this proportions, we'll have 1/2 card per faction

Yes & no: Equipment as a card (sub)type has not been around since the beginning of the 11k+ production of cards. It was probably introduced in Magic in recent years. I think perhaps in the expansion called Mirrodin(?) which would be 2003. (A pretty nice expansion actually, although token/counter heavy and also replaces fantasy theme with sci-fi to make it even more frakked up thematically in MtG)

If so, then the real proportion should be measured as a share of cards produced 2003 and onwards. Even in that case though you are absolutely correct that there won't rain equipment On the other hand, we will probably have more of it in our game than MtG has since MtG focuses much on other things we won't have as much of, for example counter-spells.

If you want to differentiate +2/0 card with 33% accuracy - that is one has to have it's cost at least 2, and the other - 3. How much would plain 2/0 creature cost then? 4? How much resources should one accumulate to play a creature like 4/3 + ability? 6? 7?

My suggestion is, with my exact example where the equipment and enchantment are equal in all but price and cardtype, that the Equipment must be more expensive, due to it having inherent advantages which the Enchantment lacks. I don't know how much more expensive it should be, but my out of the blue guesstimate is between 33% to 50%, no more, no less, rounded properly or upwards.

In my example the user got +2/+0. If that's an enchantment and it would be priced perhaps as 1G to be cheap enough to be worth including in a deck. If it's an Equipment it would cost 2G instead.

How much would plain 2/0 creature cost then? 4? How much resources should one accumulate to play a creature like 4/3 + ability? 6? 7?

Costs "formula" for creature can be seen here, at least in a crude attempt made by me and what little work has been spent on it this far.

A plain 2/0 creature with no abilities would cost exactly 1G. That said, I'm not sure 0 DEF creatures should exist if reaching a DEF of 0 kills a creature, which it seems to do as it is now.

In differentiating enchantments from equipment, you could make equipment have some sort of physical penalty. The logic being that carrying physical equipment tends to hamper its user in some degree, where as the very nature of enchantments don't. For example:

Yups, agree. Although I don't think it should be a general rule that all equipment has these drawbacks since it can be regulated by price. Some could though.

- Such weapons also tend to grow dull, so you could add an upkeep requirement that, for example, decreases the effectiveness of the weapon over time or requires the player to discard it if they can't.

Could, on some. Only problem is it requires admin of counters, else it's nice. I really think we should have a few weapons that work that way.

- I imagine certain factions would be against the use of magic, or too weak to carry equipment, so it may make sense to have a limited number of either in these kinds of factions, which would prevent such conflict.
- Certain equipment can be made disposable in order to limit its lifetime - for example, rations, first aid kits, etc.

Yes, certain factions are more geared towards magic while others are towards equipment and so on. Disposable equipment is a nice idea and something we can have around, medikit as the example you give is a good one.

Maybe this should all be added to the LDD.... =P

[Ravenchild]

"Equipment" is a rather broad term. But one thing comes to my mind that could make equipments special: Durability.

The simplest case is armor. Let's say you have a +0/5 armor. If the carrier suffers from 5 or more damage, the armor is destroyed (partial damage to the armor is forgotten at the end of turn).

For other equipments this is more difficult. For example swords (or any other melee weapons): These will break if the carrier is declared as an attacker and successfully kills an enemy unit
(Not that realistic, but maybe someone has a better idea?).

What other equipment types should there be? Ranged weapons, mounts, navigation gear, ...?

[Q_x]

"Equipment" is a type of card we'll have. Since we're kinda stuck, I was looking a way to push anything forward, I guess with not the best idea.

Item durability as a numerical value - no, for the same set of reasons we're not having vitality for the creatures.
Item destruction condition (as an option) - thumbs up for that!

As for the topology of the gear - I'd rather concentrate on "coolness factor" in terms of card development.
But, just for the record:
Mounts - I understand it's a mean of transportation, so bigger animals and vehicles
Also:
Morale raisers (medals, uniforms, banners, trumpets, drums and what not)
Magical items - may do anything, but once only
Weapons of mass destruction - also dealing damage to other creatures, including owner and allies
Big stuff - carried by more than one creature, or making it possible to two or more units become one (like a wooden tank)
Supplies - helping with unmarking, moving cards

[snowdrop]

Item durability as a numerical value - no, for the same set of reasons we're not having vitality for the creatures.
Item destruction condition (as an option) - thumbs up for that!

+1

As for the topology of the gear - I'd rather concentrate on "coolness factor" in terms of card development.

I don't know what's cool or not in a fantasy world... but rule wise equipment can have subtypes, and a creature may only use one equipment of each subtype. For example, if "weapon" is a subtype a creature would only be able to wield one weapon. However, that may be too broad of a subtype, or not, and instead it could be(?) replaced by "sword" or a broader one - "edged"

But, just for the record:
Mounts - I understand it's a mean of transportation, so bigger animals and vehicles

I asked for help with Mounts a long time ago and had very little feedback. I'm sure it's around in forum, if nothing else what little was worked out can be seen in http://wtactics.org/wiki/index.php?titl ... les#Mounts

I'm against making Mounts a subtype of Equipment and also against having them at all in the game unless a very interesting role/rules can be devised for them that are not a pain in the ass... which could be far from my own suggestion in the wiki since im not all too crazy about them. Please copy-pasta this into another thread though if anyone feels like inventing them,...

Also: Morale raisers (medals, uniforms, banners, trumpets, drums and what not)

Love that stuff. We actually already have an Orc drummer (great graphics) eventhough he will most likley not be an equipment.

Magical items - may do anything, but once only

Sure, but also non-magic stuff: Loaf of bread? Medikit? Etc.

Big stuff - carried by more than one creature, or making it possible to two or more units become one (like a wooden tank)

Operator as keyword? For instance, a Trojan Horse could have "Operator 4", meaning it requires 4 creatures that "operates it". Any creature could become an operator (for sake of simplicity and usablity) but while they do operate something they are put into an assigned state (.e.g. 180 mark)

[verbalshadow]

So from my point of view equipment, enchantments and artifacts (and maybe one or two more) can all be summed up into into one Super group of cards. Lets call them Enhancements or maybe better Modifiers. All Mod cards affect or have an effect on some other card or group of cards. Mod cards all have their previous card types as their sub-type. The sub-type will define the duration of the cards ability and any other general attribute of the sub-type like equipment drops and can be picked up.

I think this simplification makes design easier and the best part is it give us many more possible combinations. Make is so we don't have to introduce new card types in expansions just sub-types and combos of them.

item - one time use
Magic - magical
equipment - things creatures can use, drop when the creature dies can be picked up
morale - group affect
artifact -
ancient -
war machine - requires mulitple creatures for use

Obviously this list can be larger but i think it gets my point acrossed. Mod cards will make the game more playable by getting rid of unneeded card types.

[snowdrop]

I think this simplification makes design easier and the best part is it give us many more possible combinations. Make is so we don't have to introduce new card types in expansions just sub-types and combos of them.

I'm not sure I understand this fully: Say we have a game with just one supertype, and that there exists only one cardtype. What would be simpler/better or more usable by that alone? It would be equal to not having any supertype and just using subtypes, especially if subtypes are still around. The supertype would just be "card" and is self-given.

Your suggestion was however something like two supertypes (cardtypes): So, either a card is supertype A or supertype B. In addition, we still must have subtypes to distinguish how these A & B supertypes work, what their rules are and so on.

The issue with having only A & B is that it could (would?) result in many more cards getting one more level of subtype. For example currently we have Equipment - Weapon - Axe or Equipment - Weapon. With your suggestion these would be B - Equipment - Weapon - Axe or B - Equipment - Weapon.

You are correct that we won't have to introduce plenty of new supertypes in the future if we have very few of them and they are very broad, but how does that make us not have to, even in those cases, introduce new subtypes? What happens is that the subtyoe info is just pushed/"nested" one step deeper into the card info.

If the point with broad supertypes (which are later defined by subtypes anyways) is to make stuff simpler I only see one single scenario where that seems to be true - the one where a card has a text similar to "This creature is immune to effects from supertype A". That is indeed helping a lot compared to what we'd currently get: "This creature is immune to effects from supertypes Equipment, Enchantments and Spells". Problem is that I think that these types of creatures/cards are usually a very tiny minority in a CCG, and that we'd usually use a much more precise control for what affects what (or doesn't affect it).

In MtG they have something similar to two meta-supertypes, called "Permanents" and "non-permanents", where permanents are all cards that are put into play and can stay for more than a turn in theory, while non-permanents are all that can not. In addition they have two more meta-supertypes, called "Spells" and "non-spells", which are rather confusingly worded, as all cards in magic are considered to be spells except for Lands. Personally I can find one, or even two if needed, meta-supertypes to be usefull in the rules. In WT there is currently the maximum need of mentioning permanents and non-permanents, maybe, but putting that info printed on cards would be a mistake as it will almost never be used while playing.

In addition there are "natural" and "indirect" meta-cardtypes, consider for example a card that states that "This creature is immune to all factioned cards." Suddenly we have yet another meta-cadrtype - factioned or unfactioned cards.