Skip to Content

How to make a CCG, TCG or LCG playable out of the box.

27 replies [Last post]
larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008

It's look like a weird question, but the concept id simple. How to make a card game as friendly to new players as a board game would be. Most of the time, card games are only played by people that own cards so you need to find other players who own the same game as you do . I would like a game that you could bring anywhere like any boardgame and that everybody would be willing to play.

1. I think the main issue is the fact that each player could own their deck, a game that does not have this feature is more prone to out of the box gameplay. So for example a central deck of card could solve the problem.

2. The packaging could also influence the player. If the games comes all into 1 box like Warhammer invasions, it is much more likely to be played out of the box. Individual starter deck packaging would give an opposite image.

3. The collectible aspects of the game should also make the game less playable out of the box than an LCG because in a collectible game, the game is somewhat incomplete and belongs to a specific player.

4. Make the deck configuration less important than the gameplay. In MTG, most of the strategy is the deck building and not the game play (I don't want to argue about this). It could be possible to design a game where a player with a random selection of cards is not more hindered than another player who built his deck.

Do you have any other suggestion?

For my game, I want individual deck but it might be playable as a common deck if deck config is not mandatory. I do intend to use LCG, and I might offer both packaging if it gets published (individual decks or complete box). But one thing for sure is I could make deck config less mandatory. The goal of the game would be to know how to use what you have in hand.

Kroz1776
Offline
Joined: 10/09/2013
Summoner Wars

If you want to see a good game with many different decks that can be played out of the box, take a look at Summoner Wars. The master set comes with 6 different factions and they're all vastly different but the game is pretty easy to learn to play. I'd play it a bit (there is an I-pad version of it if you want a free demo). Perhaps that will help.

The game basically gives you a starter deck with no deck-building needed. If you DO want to build some strategy into it, there are expansions with mercenaries that can be put in any deck, and even more cards for each faction to use. These are the expansions, but they're not needed at all to enjoy the game.

zmobie
zmobie's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/19/2008
I think you are approaching

I think you are approaching this from the wrong perspective. You are saying, how can I make an LCG/CCG have the approachability of a board game, but you should be asking yourself is, how can I make a board game that has X and Y specific features of an LCG that I love. I think you'll have an easier time of it if you flip the problem upside down like this. For example, what I love about CCG's is obsessing about the meta-game outside of play. Building decks, talking strategy, and prepping for a game. Building something. There are a lot of board games where you build things within the game, or even as a part of the game, like Agricola for example. What if you had X points to build your farm in Agricola before play even started, and then you basically started from the middle of the game? Maybe thats not a great example, but you get my idea.

I am intrigued by this idea as well. What if we look at Magic: The Gathering not as the giant behemoth that it is, but as it was at its release. What if it were released today, and was a 2 player competitive game in a box. What if it didn't have expansions yet? Looking at it from this perspective, it's easy to see a humble competitive 2 player game that has some simple core rules as a framework for the cards themselves to build upon those simple rules. It's then sort of easy to imagine other such games. You create a rules framework that have some components that expand on the framework.

Magic could just as easily have had tiles to build a modular board, or a central deck like you are saying, or a farm that produces resources. It could have been anything as long as the rules were simple enough, and the components could interestingly break those rules. As long as you can come to the table with something you built yourself, I argue you are still capturing the important part of a CCG/LCG... well that and the obsessive desire to spend money on more components.

I think all of my designs lately have been quaint little games that are very self contained. I think this might be a terrible idea if I ever want to make any money doing this. You either come up with a thousand little hit games, or come up with one that you can build on forever. Making a new game that is good every couple of months is nearly impossible. Making a good game once, and then expanding it for years doesn't sound nearly as difficult. I want to build a big game next.

Corsaire
Corsaire's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/27/2013
then why say it

It is unclear to me, why one would make a controversial assertion followed by not wanting to argue about it. Simply don't make the assertion.

MtG has the starter set that has two balanced decks ready to be played by two people with good gameplay strategy potential. The Netrunner I have came that way with two ready to play decks. Deck builders are ready to play. The Marvel VS System is another.

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
Quote:It is unclear to me,

Quote:
It is unclear to me, why one would make a controversial assertion followed by not wanting to argue about it. Simply don't make the assertion.

Because I am already arguing about it on other threads and I don't want the conversation to diverge from the original toppic which I want to focus.

Kroz1776
Offline
Joined: 10/09/2013
Expanding!

Expanding on what I said earlier about Summoner Wars, I think it would be easy to make a card game like this in the sense that if you want factions, you print off a "master set" in which a majority of the game compenents will come. Then if you want to add more factions or more cards for factions, you can merely sell the entire faction in packs but leave room in the master set box to fit the epansions. This allows for 1.) one player to own the game while 2.) fitting all their cards in one box. By making it so there are no expansions to existing factions/decks but only new additional decks then you 4.) remove the deck building aspect of it altogether. Personally 3.) is easy to overcome by just making it like a board game in which one player owns all of it and merely gets people to play with him.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
My game

Take my game as an example (Tradewars - Homeworld)... It's deck-builder card game. It has all the cards and components that are required for solitaire game play. So there is a scenario, with its own objective, that is designed for a player to play the game ALONE. BUT if another, or three other players show up with their OWN copies of the game, the players can play a dual (1 vs. 1) or a versus game (up to 4 players).

So basically the game has everything needed to play OUT OF THE BOX, PLUS if players get together they can play one of three (3) other scenarios (which are designed for 2 or more players).

I hope to create expansions of other races with some variance in the cards - I am not sure how I will proceed with that. For now my focus is getting the First Edition of the game to gamers...

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
Quote:BUT if another, or

Quote:
BUT if another, or three other players show up with their OWN copies of the game

That's actually the opposite of playable out of the box.

I am just dreaming right now, but if My game would get published, I think I would offer 2 options, either you buy individual decks, or a pack with all decks included. Beign able to buy 1 deck is actually cheap and might incite player to invest a dozen of dollars in a new game since it's less risky rather than pay 50$ like dominion and realising they do not like it.

zmobie, your approach seems interesting, but I have an hard time to grasp it. I'll try to read your post more carefully.

There is a mirror thread here which evolved in a different direction. Could be interesting to look out:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/13796318#13796318

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Huh???

larienna wrote:
That's actually the opposite of playable out of the box.

I don't think you read my message correctly: I have BOTH a single player scenario which is playable OUT OF THE BOX AND three (3) other scenarios which players can play together...

Kroz1776
Offline
Joined: 10/09/2013
I think she read you right?

questccg wrote:
larienna wrote:
That's actually the opposite of playable out of the box.

I don't think you read my message correctly: I have BOTH a single player scenario which is playable OUT OF THE BOX AND three (3) other scenarios which players can play together...

So, to clarify, you're saying that if you have your own copy and you want to play with someone else, they have to have their own copy? If so, then she did read you right. What she means is that if you buy a game, you can open it and immediately play with family and friends who happen to be right there, with just your copy of the game.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Hybrid, sort of...

Kroz1776 wrote:
What she means is that if you buy a game, you can open it and immediately play with family and friends who happen to be right there, with just your copy of the game.

I get the confusion now... You have to factor in the number of players. So my game would be a sort of *hybrid*. It allows one (1) player to play the game in a 1 Player mode (solitaire game). So out-of-the-box you can play the game - but just you, not you and your family or friends...

For more players, each additional player (up to 4) needs their own copy of the game... Each deck is sold separately... as a one player kit. So that aspect is the opposite of out-of-the-box. Correct!

So larienna is sort of correct, in that the game cannot be played with MULTIPLE players out-of-the-box. But a player can enjoy his own copy by playing the 1 player scenario... So I guess it is a hybrid. You can't play Magic: the Gathering alone. Most games you can't play alone... Mine you can!

Note: The 1 player (solitary) game is much simpler since there is no reason to Bank money - since there is no money objective. It is a race between you and The Derelict, an alien starship that is a threat. The Derelict's goal is to destroy your Homeworld. Obviously your role is to defend your Homeworld first and then build up enough offensive firepower to destroy the alien starship... But there are a lot of concepts not used in this scenario: missions, diplomacy, banking/trading, several roles, etc.

Note 2: This is the 2nd game that I try to develop using modular game units. In this case, each player has their own deck of cards and dice. I just can't picture a box with 300 cards in it (for 4 player games) and 44 dice! Would be crazy to package/sell the game out-of-the-box... The *one player kits* method is logical in that each player brings their box and plays with other players (2, 3 or 4)...

Note 3: The modular design also allows for the possibility of *expansions*. So one player could own four (4) copies of the game, each one with a different race! So with each edition of the game, players can have multiple copies of the game to play in a dual or versus scenario...

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
Ok, I see your subtelity, in

Ok, I see your subtelity, in MTG, if you buy the game you cannot play by yourself you need other players.

But the concept could be pushed further because like I explained on another thread, in the CCG world, people are not willing to play a game they do not have cards even if you supply the cards. So even if I do have enough cards for everybody, people won't play, because they feel they need to own the cards to play the game. Which makes it harder to find partners willing to play.

The reasons why people don't want to play is relatively what I have listed in my first post.

But there are some games like for example Warhammer Invasion (which I have played) that does not feel like a CCG and that is quite playable without any customization from the part of the player. That games feel playable out of the box. The one box packaging also improve this perception.

So like I said in the other thread, if the game could be played out of a random selection of cards, then the customization aspect should be much less important than the gameplay, and players would not bother about the deck they get. But in MTG, most of the strategy of the game occurs during deck building, so if you give pre-built deck, you remove half the fun of the game.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
I recall...

I remember visiting a friend and one of his other friends came to visit. He wanted us to play Yu-Gi-Oh! He said he made two (2) different decks with different game strategies. Obviously neither my friend or I knew what those strategies were... And so I can understand the confusion that happens when you say: "...in the CCG world, people are not willing to play a game they do not have cards even if you supply the cards."

It's because players don't know how the decks were built... And what kind of strategy they can use. But it think it is part *stigma* that people don't want to play.

Getting back to my friend and I, obviously the other friend won the game once he summoned his strongest monster which we could not defeat! Something like every time we summoned a NEW monster, his monster allowed him to decide which monster we needed to discard. So we could not summon enough monsters to overpower his one super-monster.

Explaining the subtleties of each *card* is IMPOSSIBLE. You can't say: "This is a cheap card - but if you combine it with this card, it is actually a very powerful card..." And therefore a player can't sit there and explain ALL the cards that could go into your deck. So I think that is part of the game - learning which cards are more powerful, how to perform combos, etc. This is all part of building a deck. And it is something that is more complex than what the average casual gamer is looking for.

Learning about all the cards is something you do ON YOUR OWN TIME. If you like the game, you will immerse yourself in the game and spend time reading and learning all about the cards. Casual gamers that come to a game don't do this... It's like watching a movie or reading a book. A movie takes a couple of hours - enough to satisfy a casual gamer. But reading a book can take a week or more - too much time invested for the average casual gamer...

So my advice to you is this:

  • Find a *way* so that you use a *MASTER Deck* (Having all the cards) and allow players to CHOOSE their cards. Yes - the setup time of your game will take MORE time...
  • Find a *way* so that player can UNDERSTAND the value of each card they pick. This is the tough one. You need to have something that can GUIDE players in choosing their cards. Perhaps you could have values in the top right-hand corner going from 1 to 5. This may be a too simple solution...
  • Explain to players that the BEST deck is a BALANCED one... You would need to enforce this with your game rules... So if a player takes always level 5 cards, he will not be the most powerful, he will have a HARD time playing the game.
  • Find a *way* to make *combos* with maybe the use of colours. Sort like in Magic: the Gathering, you can have a Blue deck or a Red deck, etc. I think this is a good way to have *combos* that work together...

These are some ideas of how to make a CCG playable "Out-of-the-box". But it requires a LOT of thinking by the DESIGNER. You have to make sure *combos* can play out, you need to make sure that a balanced deck is stronger than unbalanced ones... So your goal is to have an AVERAGE deck (the best way I can explain what I am thinking...)

You could use SYMBOLS that work together... Again very difficult for the designer to be able to get the cards follow these rules... You can have colours and symbols and use a RPS-5 (Rock-Paper-Scissor-Lizard-Spock) for your combos. Using 5 colours with an RPS-5 is more DIFFICULT for the casual gamer to understand. So maybe you could use a RPS-3 with three colours... This is probably as simple as it can get.

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
Quote:Getting back to my

Quote:
Getting back to my friend and I, obviously the other friend won the game once he summoned his strongest monster which we could not defeat!

Great you found the biggest yugioh flaw.

On the other thread there was an idea to have set of card p\that players selected at the beginning of the game. For example, chose 5 set of 10 card to make your 50 card deck. This allow a bit of customization in a little amount of time even if the players does not know the rules yet.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Quest Adventure Cards(tm)

larienna wrote:
For example, choose 5 set of 10 card to make your 50 card deck. This allow a bit of customization in a little amount of time even if the players does not know the rules yet.

But why customize IF you don't know the rules yet...

This REMINDS me of Quest Adventure Cards(tm). Each booster pack is a SET of 10 cards (the same 10 cards). Players CHOOSE which sets they want to play (3 sets per player) and then play the game TOGETHER. So if three (3) players are playing, there are nine (9) sets in the game. Also it does NOT matter if there are DOUBLES or TRIPLES, the game will still work.

The sets are THEMATIC-oriented since they are all DIFFERENT QUESTS. So if a player likes the undead, he may choose "Vampiric Crusade" or if he prefers magic then he would choose the "Magic Brewery"... Players customize their decks by including the sets they like...

My ORIGINAL plan for the game was to have a LARGE number of sets. Like 100 sets (Of 10 cards = 1,000 cards). Kids could choose in the morning before school which sets they would bring to school... On lunch hour they could then play with friends after having had lunch! That was the plan... :P If Quest AC had a lot of traction in the market, my goal would have been to have MANY, MANY Quests for children to choose from.

It is a *hybrid* CCG, since you can TRADE whole SETS (of 10 cards). So basically you could trade one Quest for another. And it is easy to know by the cards themselves which cards are part of a set and that there are ALWAYS 10 cards to a set.

A Second Edition is in a prototype phase - But I would want to rework the game into something else... I would want the game to be LESS RIGID... Something like being able to TRADE CARDS (individually) and not affect the Quests. In the Second Edition, I have REMOVED the Quest Cards (the ones with the Quests themselves) and I am using a way to bind the cards together. This is a step forwards (in terms of looser mechanics) but it still needs some work to be even more FLEXIBLE.

I would want the game to be like Magic, where you can trade ANY card for another and still be able to play the game...

Making me think about Quest AC reminds me that although the game is SIMPLE, there are still good points to the game. Knowing what I have learned about the difficulty of CCGs and the approach I used, I would do things very differently. Even the Second Edition prototype is not where I would take the game.

But your idea of using 5 x 10 card sets is EXACTLY what Quest AC does - except we only use 3 x 10 cards!

Note: I'm not even sure if collating sets to 10 cards is a smart idea any more... I colour coded each set, so for example Magicians were Green, Fighters were Red, Thieves were Yellow, etc. If you want to allow TRADING, I think you need to give up the SET concept. But in doing so, you complicate the game - So instead of ONE deck, each player should have his OWN deck (like Magic).

Sharing cards is a *difficult* concept. Why? Some players will take better care of their cards, when playing with double, cards get all mixed up... The concept HAS MERIT, teaching kids to SHARE... But in practice separate decks is much, MUCH more PRACTICAL.

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
Quote:But why customize IF

Quote:
But why customize IF you don't know the rules yet...

Each set of card could have a thematic expression or some basic stats to guide the players in their choice after maybe explaining the rules.

drunknmunky
drunknmunky's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/25/2010
The idea posted by larienna

The idea posted by larienna about mixing decks is the whole premise of smash up. Fantastic game and adds a ton of replay value and strategy. Take a look at how that game is structured and go from there.

BENagy
BENagy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/25/2013
I think this is what the

I think this is what the deckbuilding genre is trying to do. By building your deck DURING the game, you're taking away that initial advantage of pre set-up, as per your 4th point. Which is obviously what you're looking at with LCGs.

What was said about the color-decks is a great idea. I'm going to make an assumption about where you're heading with this, so I could be off, just let me know. I remember when I was a kid, and bought the first available starter deck for Pokémon. It was a standard 60 card deck, as would be required for that game, and taught basic deckbuilding strategy by having two "colors" available in the deck, fire and fighting types. Any player could buy this deck (it was $10), and start playing the Pokémon TCG. But there was a special insert in there, that told you how to split the deck into two suggested "half decks" (obviously one fire, one fighting), and walked you through playing the game.

I guess, then, my suggestion would be to have some easy suggested walkthrough of set colors or factions that everyone can break up and play with if it's their first game, but can easily mix the cards together, and bid before, or buy during, cards to make new cross-color combos. In Magic, it would be opening a completed 250 card set, already broken into 5 decks of 50, ready to play, but the main game played more like "Cube", if you're familiar with that variant.

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
Quote:The idea posted by

Quote:
The idea posted by larienna about mixing decks is the whole premise of smash up.

Yes Smash up use a similar mechanic.

As for various deck configuration, I am running many threads so I am not sure what I said on each thread.

But the idea is that a deck of random card will be playable in my game since all cards are mana and creatures, and the color dependency is not very strong. You only need to own a mana of the matching color, not even tap it (to put it in MTG words).

So being able to do the worst composition possible, which is random, it would be possible to play many other composition like draft, pre-build, set selection, custom. So there is not really any restriction because any card combination in a deck will be playable. The only rule is that deck of the same type should fight each other. For example, it might be unfair that a pre-built deck fights a custom deck.

In MTG, completely random deck is impossible since you need mana cards matching the color of your cards and you must have a good proportion of land in the deck too. My game has no such issues.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Confusion?!

larienna wrote:
But the idea is that a deck of random card will be playable in my game since all cards are mana and creatures, and the color dependency is not very strong. You only need to own a mana of the matching color, not even tap it (to put it in MTG words)...

In MTG, completely random deck is impossible since you need mana cards matching the color of your cards and you must have a good proportion of land in the deck too. My game has no such issues.

Can you clarify this? First you say that in your game all cards are MANA AND CREATURES... But then you say "You only need to own a mana of the matching colour." Then you say in MtG "you need mana cards matching the colour of your cards and you must have a good proportion of land in the deck too".

But your last statement is: "My game has no such issues."???

I'm confused.

BENagy
BENagy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/25/2013
My guess is that it's similar

My guess is that it's similar to Kaijudo, where creatures can act like creatures or mana, you choose?

Kroz1776
Offline
Joined: 10/09/2013
Clarifications!

I shall translate Larienna speech for you.

I believe it works like this. In the card game, you have monsters and Mana. When you play mana, you put it out in front of you like land. Say you have 2 blue mana, 6 red mana, and 1 green mana. On your turn you want to summon a monster that costs 1 green and 2 blue mana. You summon it. Next turn you have another copy of that monster in your hand. You summon it because you don't exaust your mana in the same sense that MtG does. This allows for a more random setup because if you only have 2 blue mana, you don't have to worry about tapping it and then waiting two turns to summon another 2 blue monster whereas that wait wouldn't be necessary with my red mana because I could summon two more 2 red monsters because of the excess.

(Correct me if I'm wrong Larienna).

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Rain of Fire

BENagy wrote:
My guess is that it's similar to Kaijudo, where creatures can act like creatures or mana, you choose?

Isn't that a little bit *confusing*? Like how do you know which are real creatures and which are being used for mana? Is it something like tapping the mana cards to demonstrate they are mana not the creature? Can you decide at some point that mana becomes a creature???

I find it odd - because I had designed a game like that. It was called "Rain of Fire". And it had the exact mechanic as suggested: a card could be a unit or mana. Personally I felt it was too confusing and decided that the prototype just didn't make it. I also had a sh!tty battle mechanic which did not help also...

Rain of Fire had three (3) types of units: Gods from the Heavens, Humans for Earth and then Monsters for Hell. There were 3 types of mana: heavenly, earthly and hellish. The game had religious undertones like from the Old Testament... Things like "Burnt Offering" to produce more "heavenly mana", "Sacrificial lamb", etc.

Note: How I was using the cards was to have UNITS and the MODIFIERS. Each card could produce mana. Units were like creatures and could be used for battle/defence. And modifiers were cards you could use like *Trap* cards in Yu-Gi-Oh! They gave bonuses to a player or caused penalties to the opponent.

BENagy
BENagy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/25/2013
Interesting. In Kaijudo, I

Interesting. In Kaijudo, I think they use 'Zones". So similarly to how you keep your lands closer to you than your creatures in Magic, you discard creatures in your hand close to you, and then you can tap them to use them once per turn, similar to lands in magic. The advantage, obviously, is that there are no wasted cards in your decks, place-holding for "lands".

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
It seem people have answered

It seem people have answered for me. Yes it's like Kaijudo/Duel Masters (because this game is very good, but still not perfect enough (^_^) ) but I pushed further: Each card can be either a creature, a spell or a mana (crystal).

The zones determine what is the card used for. There are in fact 7 zones in my game:

Deck, hand, Tower (Shield), Battlefield, Vault (mana), Groove, and Discard.

The function of the card changes according to its location. For example, cards in the battlefield are always creatures, cards in the vault are always crystals and ignore the text of the card, etc.

So on your turn, you set as mana cards you don't intend to use because they cost too high, or have bad abilities, etc. You only need 1 crystal in your vault to match the creature you want to summon, and have a nb of crystal >= than casting cost. So with this mechanic, it's impossible to get mana shortage, or overflow because all cards can be used for both purpose. Too much mana, cast your cards, not enought mana, place your cards in your vault.

You can also use the card as a spell ability which are mostly discarded after use. Enchantment spells are placed in a separate zone and are attack-able (prevent the need of disenchant cards)

Since you can flush your hand to draw a full hand of cards, there is no possible shortage of resources. You could end up with a low concentration of a certain color in your deck, but you need to place only 1 such card in your vault to unlock that color. So if you place 1 card of each color into your vault, you can use any card in your deck as long as you have the right number of mana.

That is why a random deck could be playable.

I finished revising the rules and I was designing my ability catalog when a sudden ubuntu update prevented my computer to boot. So I have to reinstall everything which just delay even more the release of my first prototype (Thinking of installing Linux Mint instead). I could test with DM/Kaijudo cards some aspects of the game, but since they do not each have a spell and a creature, I cannot test all the capabilities of the game.

Right now, the test were very positive, but the complex part is to design the cards. The good part of that game idea is that if I make it successful, being only cards, it could probably be easily sold through the game crafters. Anyways, let's stop dreaming too far, there is still some work to do.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Sound good!

Your explanation of zones and how certain zones allow you to focus on certain card details is GOOD. I think that kind of simplification opens up the game to *casual gamers*.

In my current WIP, I was originally focusing on the Deck-Building aspect of the game. But I took the game to a couple of casual gamers and they told me I should focus more on Space Skirmishes (battles). And it's true, by doing so, the game opens up to the more *casual gamer*. They better understand the game as being a "versus/dual" type of game, where your goal is to defeat your opponent.

Just one clarification (to see if I understood):

You only need ONE crystal card for each colour to allow you to play ANY creature in the battlefield.

Is my understanding correct?

I was confused by "... you can use any card in your deck as long as you have the RIGHT NUMBER of mana".

Note: For my own *curiosity* what are the "Tower (Shield)" and "Groove" zones???

BENagy
BENagy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/25/2013
My understanding is that,

My understanding is that, let's assume you want to play Grizzly bears (Going back to Magic for a bit). You need to have two cards in your "Vault", and one of them needs to be green. Want to play Vulshock Sorceror? You could have, as an example, 1 Air Elemental (Blue), 1 Grizzly Bears (Green), and 1 Goblin Catapult (Red). There are no cards that require multiple of any given color. So the mana curve is more even because, although the Vulshock Sorceror in Magic requires two red mana and 1 of any color, in Larienna's game, as long as you have 1 red card in your vault, you're good to go!

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
Quote:Your explanation of

Quote:
Your explanation of zones and how certain zones allow you to focus on certain card details is GOOD. I think that kind of simplification opens up the game to *casual gamers*.

All CCG have zones, it's just that they are not strictly defined as DM. In MTG, you have the hand, the library, the graveyard and the playing field.

For a casting example, in you vault you would have a certain number of cards of a certain color. Let say you have 1 red card and 4 green cards.

That gives you 5 mana and you can use to cast red and green cards.

So I could for example cast a

cost 2 red spell, and a cost 3 green spell.

It does not exceed 5 and the colors match. So I could not cast a yellow 6 card for example. An neither 2 x 3 green spells.

But in my game and Kaijudo, I could do the following, cast a

Cost 2 red spell and a cost 3 red spell.

In duel masters, this is illegal because mana are taped. Since I only had 1 red mana, it is depleted and not available again. In Kaijudo, you do not deplete a card of a certain color, you just need to have it.

----------------------------------------------------

Towers/shields, are like in DM/Kaijudo: You have 5 cards each attacking creature that passes destroy a shield. When all shield are gone the 6th attack kills the player. Very nice because it's independent of the creature strength. So small and large creature does the same damage to the player.

Groove replace the shield trigger ability in DM. It is used to cast spells in opponent's turns at a specific step. It is similar to a fighting game groove. Everytime a tower or a creature is destroyed, the cards are discarded to your groove. When you lose a creature or a tower, you can use your groove as mana to cast spells (only spells) as a retaliation to your opponent's action.

So it's a counter balance mechanic where the more you get punched, the stronger your retaliation will be. Like in fighting games.

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut