Skip to Content

Creating mount-rules in a CCG ?

6 replies [Last post]
eyerouge
eyerouge's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/30/2008
WTactics: Bound by Love

Reason I'm asking is because I'm considering adding mounts to http://WTactics.org as a cardtype or subtype of creatures, but am not sure about what it could bring. While rules are not the same as in MtG the mother of CCG:s could still be used here to have a constructive discussion. (Adaptation would be my concern later on...oh, and as always - I'm still looking for people that want to dev this game with me - contact me already..)

Q: How would you implement the idea of creatures using a mount (i.e. a dragon to fly on, a horse to ride etc)

// Broken down
Some questions that come to mind:

a) Would the mount creature (i.e. dragon) have attack/defend values? Would it be able to participate in some kind of combat?

b) If so - how exactly does combat work when such creatures are involved?

c) If not, what other benefits would a mount be able to bring to the game? How do they work?

d) Can mounts be in play without a creature attached to them?

e) If so, would one be able to control them like normal creatures?

And the most important of all:

f) What could mounts bring to the game which can't already be achieved by other already existing cardtypes and how does it bring it in a better way? How do we make mounts interesting and let them have a clear functional identity in the game?

// Own thoughts

1. Handicap: Make each mountable unable to attack on their own: Only time they'd be able to attack would be if they were mounted. Mounts can however always be used to block incoming attacks.

2. One on One: Each mountable creature can only be mounted by one other non-mountable creature.

3.Enchant: Mountable creatures have abilities, but they're usually only in effect when they're mounted. In some cases they're transferred to wheoever is riding them.

4.Bunker: Whenever opponent wants to target a creature that is riding a mount he/she must target the mount instead. Whenever a mounted creature is blocking/getting whoop ass back it is it's mount that takes the damage instead.

5. Elephant on my stomach: When a mount is killed damage spills over/tramples to the creature that was riding it. (But the rider doesn't strike back.)

6. Exhaust: When mounts die the rider "falls off", getting automagically tapped if he wasn't already. Hopping up on a mount taps both rider and mount. Hopping of does the same. Thus mounts can be in play with no riders.

________
(Totally offtopic and for whoever has kept following my ramblings in here since it relates to an older discussion about the game and viability to manage with just creature art: I've begun to ruin myself by getting original art for the game done, attached a preview.... so parts of that problem is solved... )

Relexx
Relexx's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/31/2010
I thought I had already

I thought I had already responded to this, so here is second time...

Consider options like flying = avoiding defense, or an attack that can not be retaliated against (ie defense only)
Ground based = charge or penetration styled attack or sweep attacks (oliphants sp? in LotR)

Also I probably would not consider tapping when a dismount happens.

eyerouge
eyerouge's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/30/2008
Thanks for the input. :) (You

Thanks for the input. :)

(You did respond, but it was as a comment to the attached picture, if that's what you meant.)

I think your suggestions are interesting, and that you're maybe right about the unmounting: It could prove to make mounting too costly as it slows down that character.

Then again, I'm still not quite sure what actual role mounts have more than flavor. I don't want the whole game to revolve around using mounts - if they're included they should still be sparse and there would have to exist many ways to deal with them that don't include me having mounts myself in my deck.

My own suggestion of how they could work, as well as yours, make them "advanced equipment" in MtG terminology. I guess, since there are unique rules attached to their usage and they are not the same for any other cardtype, that they could indeed become a card type of their own.

Drawback with that is of course that there would be yet another cardtype/more rules. At current time there are:

- Creatures (humanoid characters, sentient beings)
- Mounts? (less so)
- Equipment (Always attached to a creature, played by the player)
- Artifacts (objects that can never be attached to a creature)
- Magic (Not quite clear what would set this apart from Equipment or Artifacts)
- Event cards (i.e. Instants, misc stuff that "happens")
- [Reserved for future]

= 7 card types including the not so convincing Mount as one.... This is on par with number of types in MtG, but it's not necessarily a good thing, as only reason I believe a new card type is motivated is to tell us something about how it works, what kind of rules apply for it.

Kamon
Offline
Joined: 08/04/2009
I think mounts add something

I think mounts add something new to ccg's that I haven't seen before. Is there a type of payment/cost sytem in your game? Of so, you could have a character pay a certain amount of "mana" to ride.

eyerouge
eyerouge's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/30/2008
Kamon wrote:I think mounts

Kamon wrote:
I think mounts add something new to ccg's that I haven't seen before.

What would that be, more exactly?

I don't mean the obvious, that there is a card and it's a mount, but more in lines of how it actually enchants gameplay and makes the game more interesting - what does it bring that any other cardtype couldnt accomplish? Why should one have mounts in the game?

(On a sidenote, I know Doomtrooper CCG used to have vehicles that characters could enter.. or were they just equipments? Don't remember how they worked... I'm sure mounts are nothing new in CCG:s, but yeah, I haven't seen them used in many games either.)

Kamon wrote:
Is there a type of payment/cost sytem in your game? Of so, you could have a character pay a certain amount of "mana" to ride.

There is: As I imagine it the mount would cost to be put into play. To start riding it would be free, but it would require you to tap the mount and the rider.

Relexx
Relexx's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/31/2010
... if it expands the game in a meaningful way

eyerouge wrote:
(You did respond, but it was as a comment to the attached picture, if that's what you meant.)

That was different.

eyerouge wrote:
Then again, I'm still not quite sure what actual role mounts have more than flavor. I don't want the whole game to revolve around using mounts - if they're included they should still be sparse and there would have to exist many ways to deal with them that don't include me having mounts myself in my deck.

That is not so hard by creating Weapons or items that assist in counteracting mounts or attack types. eg. Phalanx, or long spears, shield walls, hot ash catapults for flying etc.

eyerouge wrote:
My own suggestion of how they could work, as well as yours, make them "advanced equipment" in MtG terminology. I guess, since there are unique rules attached to their usage and they are not the same for any other cardtype, that they could indeed become a card type of their own.

Drawback with that is of course that there would be yet another cardtype/more rules. At current time there are:

- Creatures (humanoid characters, sentient beings)
- Mounts? (less so)
- Equipment (Always attached to a creature, played by the player)
- Artifacts (objects that can never be attached to a creature)
- Magic (Not quite clear what would set this apart from Equipment or Artifacts)
- Event cards (i.e. Instants, misc stuff that "happens")
- [Reserved for future]

= 7 card types including the not so convincing Mount as one.... This is on par with number of types in MtG, but it's not necessarily a good thing, as only reason I believe a new card type is motivated is to tell us something about how it works, what kind of rules apply for it.


Well if we take my suggestions of flying, sweep and penetration as an example, you only need to create rules for these. It then becomes the distribution of the cards that use them that becomes important, so if you restrict the rules to just mounts at present there is no special rules for mounts per sae (except for mount/dismount/falling). It also opens the game for other types of creatures to use the rules.

JTZero
Offline
Joined: 08/27/2010
Thoughts on mount-type cards

Hey guys. New here and this caught my attention. I like the idea of a mount-type card and here's my thoughts on the subject.

A mount-type may be in play without a "rider" and act as a standalone creature in play. It can have two sets of abilities. One for itself and one that will become available for the rider when it's mounted. When a humanoid "mounts" this creature those abilities are added to that card's list of abilities, such as added speed, strength, charging ability and so on. For example, a Horse creature in play will have it's own attack, health and defense with a Charge ability. It is also a mount-type creature. You put a Knight humanoid creature into play. Through some system you allow the Knight to mount the Horse. Now the Horse is no longer in play as a creature. All of it's stats are added to the Knight's stats as if it were a piece of equipment or a weapon. The Knight then gains added stats and a Charge ability. Then you can add that a certain amount of damage can be inflicted upon the Horse as if it were a shield in order to "destroy" it. When destroyed, the Horse is removed from play and the Knight remains. In the case that a large amount of damage is inflicted upon the Knight/Horse, both cards may be destroyed in one hit. Another possibility is having a special ability to target just the Knight and, in a way, "dodge" the Horse's added defense in which case the Knight would be destroyed and the Horse would remain in play. You can mess with the mount's abilities to see what works best as far as enhancing the rider's stats.

I do apologize as I tend to ramble on when I've got thoughts to share. It just flows out. Hope this sparks some ideas. I might even use this mechanic someday.

*edit* Without thinking about it I mentioned a few things similar to what was mentioned in the original post. I guess great minds think alike. :P

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut