Subsections, a suggestion

[TorbenBeta]

I was yesterday at the games day (event about Games Workshop products) in Cologne, where I played Warhammer Invasion, a card game about Warhammer fantasy.
It has an interesting concept. As I do not know the name. I will call it:
Sections:
Well, every player has a Castle field, which has three "subsections".
- The kingdom area. This is where you gain resources
- The quest area. This is where you draw cards
- The battlefield. This is where you fight
Cards are played in any of these three sections. Based on there "power",(small hammers in Invasion) they influence the game.
Example: I have an elf with one "power".
If I play him in the kingdom area I get one resource more per round.
If I play him in the quest area I draw one card more per round.
If I play him in the battlefield area I can use him to attack my enemy.
A link to an article about the concept. http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_ ... =85&esem=1
Torben

[Ravenchild]

Using cards in different "modes" is indeed an interesting concept. I like it.

How fast is Warhammer? If I'm able to increase the amount of cards I draw each round, I suppose that you draw the cards you like/need to draw very fast?

On the other hand, a similar idea comes to my mind:
You could either play a card face up, to use it as a normal card or you could play it face-down to represent one gold you gain each round. This would be a very simple resource system.
Of course a player can not play more than one gold card each turn.

A consequence could be that a player may have a card that let him take a face-down card at random and put it onto the battlefield (or the ritual queue) with a reduced cost. If you can't pay the cost, you need to put the card into the graveyard.

This has another nice side-effect: You don't need to reserve ⅓ of your deck for boring resource cards

[TorbenBeta]

Warhammer is quite fast because you gain 3 resources per round. A normal card costs 0-2 resource.
You can draw quite many cards and this quite fast which gives you more tactical flexibility, but the problem is that the creatures there can be destroyed.
And that your deck decreases fast, if you have no cards left to draw you lose.

If I understood you correct, then you proposed nearly the same as Snowdrop in his post about Andreas Propst system http://chaosrealm.net/wtactics/forum/vi ... p?f=5&t=35.

[Ravenchild]

Warhammer is quite fast because you gain 3 resources per round. A normal card costs 0-2 resource.
You can draw quite many cards and this quite

Personally I'd prefer a slower game of approximately 15 minutes. But as long as it's fun I'm not totally against it.

If I understood you correct, then you proposed nearly the same as Snowdrop in his post about Andreas Propst system http://chaosrealm.net/wtactics/forum/vi ... p?f=5&t=35.

Oh, right. I totally forgot about the fact that you could choose to play a card face up or face down in Andreases system. So this similarity is purely coincidental

But I do not intend to have several card piles where you probably have unused gold each round. Each piece of gold should be spendable independently.

And we already have the threshold-system for more powerful cards.

I'm not sure if I've already asked this: Will there be threshold costs with mixed factions?

[snowdrop]

...in Cologne, where I played Warhammer Invasion, a card game about Warhammer fantasy.
It has an interesting concept./../ http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_ ... =85&esem=1

I agree. Interesting concept indeed. Personally I like it, from what little I saw & understood from their pretty well made (minus the voice of the man) tutorial video on that site. I wouldn't mind owning that game nor playing it

As for importing it straight off into WT (and I know that wasn't your suggestion either) I have the following objections:

- By forcing the player to choose sides (construct or destruct decks) Games Workshop will effectively cut down card compatibility to at least 50%. Most of the time it will be below the 50% mark. If we for the sake of argument assume that there's an equal amount of construct & destruct cards in the game, it would translate into that only half of the cards would potentially work with each other. For Games Workshop this could be good for business as it allows more sibling cards cross-sides and opens up for double the amount of cards to be produced if they want to. For the players it means added theming, but, at the cost of something I find way more important: The meta game and creativity when building decks. I still believe that a DIY project such as WT with little resources to release new cards should strife to keep as huge card compatibility as possible in order to a) allow max creativity b) thus allow max individualization and c) get larger meta game and more deck builds into the loop.

- It seems very hard to balance and release cards for in the long run. But this is really a soft criticism and doesn't mean the game is unbalanced.

- For some reason (actually to appeal to people) they have a humongous box! One of my goals with WT is to make the game as portable, easy and unobtrusive as possible. Luckily, Warhammer Invasion can be perfectly well without the crap box. (Yes, I do want games that have nice boxes, and it's nice. But really, carrying around a half-huge box for a CCG makes no sense.I )

- Equally, using custom play maps/tokens as they do is always a bad idea for a DIY-game, for obvious reasons. Again, WI can be played without that as well.

- Leaving really only one objection this far that relates to balance in a way: The system seems to be very susceptible to "fast swings" depending on what zone the player will choose to play a card in. It seems at first glance, and keep in mind I have not tested this, to not have the "stableness" found in many other CCG:s. Then again, this is just a matter of taste and not much can be held against it objectively, unless of course, it would indeed mean that balancing is much harder.

- A possible way of mimicking the 3-zone/HP win/loss-condition is to simply release cards for it in WT (or MtG for that matter) that give a player the opportunity to go for such a setup. Speedy example:

"Kraal's Curse - Place one defeat token onto ~this~ every time an attacker is not blocked in this front. If there are 5 tokens or more on ~this~ you lose the game."

What I'm getting at is that cards can really change the rules in whatever direction one could wish for. The big question is if/when something should be a core game mechanic. Using a card (soft solution) to accomplish what they do in Warhammer Invasion is not in any way equal to having the WI system in place. But... it begs the question: What advantages does that system have over the flexibility of MtG:s?

- Speaking of which: Superb call to make it an LCG. I am considering if we should start using that phrase, but fear that it's maybe only FF that uses it (or am I wrong?) and that it is a) not standardized yet and b) copyrighted or something.

- Nice template, would want to see it in reality to check how small details look. We could maybe learn a thing or two. ...even if I dislike much of the graphical style of the card art (or actually, GW style in general)

How fast is Warhammer? If I'm able to increase the amount of cards I draw each round, I suppose that you draw the cards you like/need to draw very fast?

Site says it playes a 2 player game within 1 to 2h, which wouldn't really make it a fast game at all and on par with a normal CCG. Personally I have no issues with fast/slow/normal games - I guess it's matter of preference and what the target group is.

But I do not intend to have several card piles where you probably have unused gold each round. Each piece of gold should be spendable independently.

I think Warcraft CCG does it that way, correct me if I'm wrong. So do several others... which I think is a nice way to ditch resource cards from the game.

You are correct that a bad deck build or bad placement of resources in Propst-piles will lead to the player not being able to fully and optimally use all of her gold. However, I myself don't see that as a problem. On the contrary, it adds another dimension of resource management and planning to it, and also should effect meta game to some degree (i.e. something that would be WT's "manacurve") Also, it's totally mendable by re-configuring the resources in the piles.

I am not totally against the system you suggest, which is straight forward (good) and also one I'd opt for until I saw Propst-piles. Reason I would prefer the PP's is:

- Elegency: Solves summoning sickness issues (what's sick this turn and what's not)

- Added strategy: a) As above, adds something to resource management b) Has a very important effect of announcing certain cards 1 turn in advance to opponent, which in my opinion further adds to real strategy (compare chess, full info game, vs poker, partial info and partial bluff. Now compare this with how it's done in MtG or your suggestion...)

- Minimizes administration: No cards to mark and unmark. Only one card to move per pile per turn.

- Keeps virtually all advantages of your system. Actually, I can't see the problems with the Propst-system unless, as you write, the non-optimal usage of the resources every turn is a problem. It could of course be a problem, but if so, what's the logic that takes us to that conclusion?

I'm not sure if I've already asked this: Will there be threshold costs with mixed factions?

No, not unless we find a way to visually present that in an easy and working manner. Simply taking the logos and scaling them down, and show 3 leaf logos instead of 3 threshold "bars" seems to be a possibility but it probably looks bad.

Rule wise, there is really nothing that hinders us from allowing such cards. However, they do lower card compatibility, and that would be the main and strongest argument against putting them into the game this early. I think I discussed this with Torben in the blog comments somewhere... hrm..

It all breaks down to this: It's a bad idea for the same reason that a blue-black creature in MtG is really only playable in mainly Blue-black decks. Compare that to a creatiure that is just black, or just blue. These last two creatures have a higher card comp than the first blue-black one. If so, blue-blacks should be avoided in WT.

Lastly, when really desired in very rare cases, such info could be put in the card text. E.g. "This gaian card may only be played if you also have an Empire card already in play."

[Ravenchild]

Okay, I have an extension for my idea (which overlaps with my old resource system):
Whenever a unit kills another unit, the units controller may pay 2 gold and attach one (random) face down card from the gold pile to the unit. The unit's rule text may then further specify what kind of upgrades a unit gets, when it has 1, 2 or any number of experience points on it.

Just for comparison: You don't pay control points (and thereby reduce your life) but "sacrifice" a gold card to improve a unit.


Some special cards may then use those face down cards attached to the units to create interesting effects like playing all face down cards for free when the attaching units dies.

- Equally, using custom play maps/tokens as they do is always a bad idea for a DIY-game, for obvious reasons. Again, WI can be played without that as well.

By using face down cards as markers we don't need tokens for standard games. Because each card may be played as a face down card and thereby serve a different function.

You are correct that a bad deck build or bad placement of resources in Propst-piles will lead to the player not being able to fully and optimally use all of her gold. However, I myself don't see that as a problem. On the contrary, it adds another dimension of resource management and planning to it, and also should effect meta game to some degree (i.e. something that would be WT's "manacurve") Also, it's totally mendable by re-configuring the resources in the piles.

If we use the Propst-piles, it will (to my understanding) be very difficult to play more powerful and more interesting cards. I think the threshold-system is a very good idea and a sufficient basis for a "manacurve".

I'm not sure if I've already asked this: Will there be threshold costs with mixed factions?

No, not unless we find a way to visually present that in an easy and working manner. Simply taking the logos and scaling them down, and show 3 leaf logos instead of 3 threshold "bars" seems to be a possibility but it probably looks bad.

I was rather thinking of threshold bars in different colors independent of the faction logo.
green: Rebels, blue: Merfolk
And you could even extend this concept (if it looks good) to display numbers on these bars to require (for example) a rebel with 2 experience points on it.

Rule wise, there is really nothing that hinders us from allowing such cards. However, they do lower card compatibility, and that would be the main and strongest argument against putting them into the game this early.

That is true. But on the other hand this could be a big bonus for decks that play with more than one faction. We haven't created a complete set of cards yet and I don't know if you plan to make some abilities faction-specific. But if this will be the case, then some players will want to have abilities from several factions in one deck.

It all breaks down to this: It's a bad idea for the same reason that a blue-black creature in MtG is really only playable in mainly Blue-black decks. Compare that to a creatiure that is just black, or just blue. These last two creatures have a higher card comp than the first blue-black one. If so, blue-blacks should be avoided in WT.

To my knowledge most MtG decks are indeed mono-colored. But that is also due to the fact that you need to put dedicated land cards into your deck and you need to make sure you have a good balance of resource and normal cards.
In WTactics (with a choice of playing a card as gold or normal) I suppose that a lot of cards will have no threshold costs at all and you only need to pay gold. Thereby you have a great choice of "cheap" cards across all factions that you can use as the basis for mixed threshold cards. Maybe I'm wrong and this won't work mathematically, but if it does, it would be cool.