(arc) VP:s and City zones

Only post if you have actually read them and the design document(s) in the Wiki.
Post Reply
User avatar
snowdrop
developer
Posts: 796
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2010 15:25
Location: Sweden
Contact:

(arc) VP:s and City zones

Post by snowdrop » Sun Nov 06, 2016 22:27

1) I don't understand, from reading the current revision of the rules and using the search, how one can ever earn any VP. :D It only says when I may lose, but in the rules it's early indications of that you can also gain VP and need to achieve that victory condition. Did I miss out on something?

2) If a player gains x VP because the other player lost x VP (meaning, x VP is transferred form one player to the other) there is probably a design problem that will be apparent eventually, relating to run away leads and keeping tension et.c.

3) Having a variable double both as a win and loss condition may be problematic, or very brilliant if it works. Most of the time it isn't in the games I've seen, and it might easily lead to artifically dragged out games that wouldn't be that long weren't it for that fact.

4) I don't see the function of having each city being it's own zone with it's own residents unless one wants to stimulate a lot of movement that can be done away with and a lot more thinking before attacking since there are more zones to keep track of.

What I'd suggest is to do what I'm already doing in ORC - just have one single zone, army zone, and have x number of cities next to it: Every single thing in ARC would still run and function identical from what I can see in the rules, which means that either the layout isn't properly explained or anchored in the rules, or the layout is not needed to support the rules.

Reason I would do it like that instead is to create clearer zoning on table, and less places to look at. Devition etc still works as intended. The only thing that will become different is the reason to move, but then one might question what function it currently fills if it can be achieved (defenidng the city and/or devoting to it) without having movement as mechanic at all.
ngoeminne
Posts: 298
Joined: Mon Feb 29, 2016 15:34

Re: (arc) VP:s and City zones

Post by ngoeminne » Mon Nov 07, 2016 12:15

snowdrop wrote:1) I don't understand, from reading the current revision of the rules and using the search, how one can ever earn any VP. :D It only says when I may lose, but in the rules it's early indications of that you can also gain VP and need to achieve that victory condition. Did I miss out on something?
You are correct, there used to be gaining VP in it when gaining an advantage, as an incentive to both use/attack a city. During playing however, we found enough incentive to use the cities. It first lacked since we we're playing more like the MTG style, that changed after a couple of test runs.

The 30 points VP limit was kept in order to be able to create other kinds of decks and play style (focusing on getting VP). However, gaining VP deemed not to be needed in the core rules.
snowdrop wrote: 2) If a player gains x VP because the other player lost x VP (meaning, x VP is transferred form one player to the other) there is probably a design problem that will be apparent eventually, relating to run away leads and keeping tension et.c.
No, VP are not transferred from one player to the other, that's not (was not the intention) in the ARC.
snowdrop wrote: 3) Having a variable double both as a win and loss condition may be problematic, or very brilliant if it works. Most of the time it isn't in the games I've seen, and it might easily lead to artifically dragged out games that wouldn't be that long weren't it for that fact.
Maybe yes, maybe no, I'm happy to see if it will hold up. What I wanted to avoid, is a stalemate that happens quite offen in MTG, one player gains unlimited life (very high) but cannot defeat the other, the other player in the other hand can't get trough the defenses.
snowdrop wrote: 4) I don't see the function of having each city being it's own zone with it's own residents unless one wants to stimulate a lot of movement that can be done away with and a lot more thinking before attacking since there are more zones to keep track of.
This is I feel where the ORC and ARC differ the most, the spacial difference. The one zone per city offers the concept of moving, near things, and makes that you can only build up the army at max of three creatures per turn (due to limitations of moving).

There are cards that use the proximity, e.g. Shadow in the Dark (can only kill creatures in the same city). Another one is call to aid (where residents of one city can help defend the other under attack)
Another one is 'besieged city' that limits the movement of residents in/out of the city.

So either, you've skipped the moving limitations, didn't find the rules-card combinations, or the rules didn't make it clear.

Also, devotion can only be achieved by residents of the city, so you need to think about where to move/place creatures. If they are all in the same zone, you could just invoke whatever advantage you need by all residents. As it is now, you're opponent has the choice to intervene, she/he can attack a certain city, target residents of a certain city. Depending on what he/she thinks is most threatening.

Btw, your creatures don't get to be placed into the army directly, but could be moved there (so you could, play and move to the the army in a single turn, but that would leave it marked), effecitively you cannot attack with a creature that comes in to play the same turn (giving the opponent a chance to couteract, it should sound familiar). Of course, if your creature has 'sudden' you could place them into the army and attack directly.
snowdrop wrote: What I'd suggest is to do what I'm already doing in ORC - just have one single zone, army zone, and have x number of cities next to it: Every single thing in ARC would still run and function identical from what I can see in the rules, which means that either the layout isn't properly explained or anchored in the rules, or the layout is not needed to support the rules.

Reason I would do it like that instead is to create clearer zoning on table, and less places to look at. Devition etc still works as intended. The only thing that will become different is the reason to move, but then one might question what function it currently fills if it can be achieved (defenidng the city and/or devoting to it) without having movement as mechanic at all.
So no, not every single thing in the ARC would run and function identical. We've playtested it and the zoning, layouting with three cities is clear, you also have a difference in occupation. Your most important (think of capital) city is crowed, some other cities advantages is less important, and not so crowed. It worked rather well.

I feel that you always need the rules & card rules & playtest to be able to enjoy the things. A rule set alone will not give you the insight alone.

Kind regards,
Nico
ngoeminne
Posts: 298
Joined: Mon Feb 29, 2016 15:34

Re: (arc) VP:s and City zones

Post by ngoeminne » Sat Nov 12, 2016 19:09

Maybe it was a bit to blunt to throw the VP gain when the cities advantages were reworked.

An alternative could be that you gain 1 VP in the beginning of the tactics for each city that has a minimum (number of loyalty marks) of residents of the same faction.

E.G. A gaian city with 3 loyalty marks having 3 gaian residents would give you 1 VP.

Kind regards,
Nico
User avatar
snowdrop
developer
Posts: 796
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2010 15:25
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Re: (arc) VP:s and City zones

Post by snowdrop » Sun Nov 13, 2016 00:22

ngoeminne wrote:Maybe it was a bit to blunt to throw the VP gain when the cities advantages were reworked.
I'd say it only depends on the following questions, if I'm not missing out on something:
  • What does it add? Is it needed or wanted?
  • How does it affect play time and tempo?
  • Is there already working interactions around the cities? How will that affect it?
  • How does it affect acquirement of other win/lose conditions and are there relations?
Agree with what you wrote about it being hard to grasp without a lot of, or any for that matter, playtesting, so I'm theorycrafting here :P
ngoeminne
Posts: 298
Joined: Mon Feb 29, 2016 15:34

Re: (arc) VP:s and City zones

Post by ngoeminne » Sun Nov 13, 2016 13:05

Hi snowdrop,

What we did find is that it does build a little more pressure to use/act against a city, especially when the win victory is getting near. (that was from playtesting with the competition/bid style advantage gathering, I assume it would be the same for the level-style)

Btw, the play time depends on the decks themselves.
We did long Gaian vs Uneasy but, also very short (ca. 7 - 10 min) Uneasy vs Uneasy.

Kind regards,
Nico
Post Reply