Skip to Content

Action Points Allowance...

26 replies [Last post]
le_renard
le_renard's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/08/2010

I know this thread is not that far from Larienna's "Action point system for fleets", but i didn't want to spoil this topic so here I am...

I'm trying to decide the best way to allocate Actions Points to the players in my game... I really want the players to have to manage these points... those A.P are used to move / attack / or perform specific actions or abilities. Some Actions are simple and require 1 A.P. Some are complex and require 2 A.P... ( to make it short )

Some games are using fixed amounts of A.P for a turn / Some are using Action Cards that one can draw from a common deck or from his own hand, until exhaustion of the deck... / Some games are using time counters ( like Thebe and Red November - Bruno Faidutti pays his tribute to Prinz's Thebes in the rules of Red November... )

Do you think a system based on rolling dice to determine the Action Points that are to be allocated to a player is an heresy ? ^^

In my game, I have some "major" characters and some more "basic" ones... I thought of giving an Action dice per "major character" into play during a turn...

What do you think ?

Louard
Louard's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/09/2010
Try a few...

Obviously, a fixed amount of AP will be the most balanced, but you may feel this is too dry...

I think dice rolling is fun and just needs to be accounted for. You could have a custom D6 which produces 1 of three results, 3ap, 2ap+draw 1 card or 1ap+draw 2 cards, or something of the sort. So the player that keeps rolling low AP is getting something else in return.

Otherwise, you could have cards define how many AP you get in the turn but have each player have their own identical deck.. that way, if you are getting screwed early in the game, that means you'll have all your big AP cards toward the end. You could further balance this by putting extra effects on the lower AP cards like getting extra resources, getting bonuses to building or attacking etc.

sloan_man
Offline
Joined: 04/26/2011
C-C-C-Combo!

You mentioned having Basic and Major characters. You could assign the different units a "Base" amount of action points, and then add the roll of a D6 to that base number. So the player knows that their major unit will ALWAYS be able to execute their base number of action points, and the extra points from the D6 allow them to carry out more, or more exciting actions. (Although, you might want to treat the D6 as a D3, to cut down on the number of action points being handed out.)

Dralius
Dralius's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/26/2008
If the game is long enough

If the game is long enough for the odds to even things out than I think it’s ok.

If it's shorter you could make it a risk decision for them

For example they could take a fixed amount, let’s say 3 action points or roll a D6 and take what they get.

drktron
drktron's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/18/2010
le_renard wrote: I'm trying

le_renard wrote:

I'm trying to decide the best way to allocate Actions Points to the players in my game... I really want the players to have to manage these points...

If you want the players to manage the action points I don't know if dice is the best way to go. Your introducing a lot of variability such that the decision-making of the turn goes from preplanning to reactionary (do the best with what you rolled). The previous posters ideas help. A fixed amount with the option to risk it for a higher amount or a fixed amount with a roll or a customized die with the low numbers balanced out with other functions.

The card idea I like except I would have the player manage it themselves instead of drawing it. Give each player a hand of AP cards. Each turn they choose one to play but can't use it again until their hand runs out. That way they have to make interesting decisions of when to use their high AP cards.

Just my 2 cents.

le_renard
le_renard's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/08/2010
Thanks

Thanks a lot for all your suggestions... they're all inspiring.

I tend to think that a small 5 or so Action Cards Deck would be the best option ( Dungeon Twister has a similar mechanic I think ) but I already have several decks in this project, and the Combat system has evolved into a Battle Cards deck ( hard number + blind bidding ).

So I think I'm going to try a Base number + Roll an extra Action die per "Major" units into play.

Since the main "ressource" in the game is expressed in Support Points ( that you acquire when taking or blessing cities... ) I think I could go for something like +3AP / +2AP + 1SP / +1AP + 2SP (on a D3 custom dice )
For some reason, this unit has not been able to act or fight but has participated to the war effort nonetheless...

t0tem
t0tem's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2011
Dice are fun but not if they

Dice are fun but not if they slow the game down to a crawl, they take time so unless each player only has a single unit or so, I would go for fixed points; also this makes a player better able to prepare her turn and set up strategies without waiting to see the die result.

knaves
Offline
Joined: 04/07/2011
The card system sounds fine.

The card system sounds fine. There are several issues with dice.
1. it could be really unfun. People like chance but when you are vastly hampered on an important turn because you rolled a 1 and can't do the actions you need this will cause major frustration.
2. You can't plan your turn until you know how many actions you will have available, this will increase ap.

A card system like Dungeon twister could be good. or drawing from a deck but having a number of cards to choose from on your turn. But you need some choice and some foreknowledge so that you can plan your turn ahead of time.

Casamyr
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
I like an idea where you have

I like an idea where you have a hand of cards each with an action point value, and each turn you draw a new card/s back up to a hand limit. To make it slightly more interesting though when you play your action point value card, the other player can then play AP cards until he passes your value.

Example:
Player 1 has 3 AP cards 1, 3, and 4. He decides that he needs to play the 4 AP card. And takes a number of actions = to the value of the card.

Player 2 has 3 AP cards 2, 3, 4: he decides to play the 2 and 4 to give him six action points and places him ahead on the AP value.

You could even go the path of Horus Heresy where action cards all have a AP value and you need to manage your hand. The upside to this is you can really differentiate different sides by the kinds of actions that can be completed.

le_renard
le_renard's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/08/2010
Thanks again to everyone for

Thanks again to everyone for your help...
I think I'm going to try both ways... dice&frustration / cards&management ^^

So, about the cards :
- Action Cards you have to manage...
- A hand limit ( I need it to be small because I don't want the player to have to track too many things... )
- Draw one or more cards ( that could be an ability of one of the characters... )

Casamyr wrote:
When you play your action point value card, the other player can then play AP cards until he passes your value.

In my game there's a first player determined each turn... this player performs all his turn... including actions etc...
Would your suggestion mean that Player B ( the other player ) "interrupts" this turn ? In this case, I guess the amount of actions Player B could do during Player A's turn should not be too high... ( remain "under" the number of Actions performed by Player A ). Don't you think ?

knaves wrote:
drawing from a deck but having a number of cards to choose from on your turn.

...and you cannot discard any card ( except a special ability of some sort... ) so you need to play your weakest cards.

drktron wrote:
Give each player a hand of AP cards. Each turn they choose one to play but can't use it again until their hand runs out. That way they have to make interesting decisions of when to use their high AP cards.

This is something that I like... I already use this mechanic for the Combat system... do you think having the same mechanic for both Actions & Combats is a problem and could lead players to mix everything and make some mistakes, taking one deck for another etc ? ^^

So many possibilities !

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
Quick idea that could fit

Quick idea that could fit your need. Maybe not all units requires an action point to move.

In one of my game, when leader units moved they could bring adjacent units with them without having to spend extra action points.

drktron
drktron's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/18/2010
le_renard wrote: drktron

le_renard wrote:

drktron wrote:
Give each player a hand of AP cards. Each turn they choose one to play but can't use it again until their hand runs out. That way they have to make interesting decisions of when to use their high AP cards.

This is something that I like... I already use this mechanic for the Combat system... do you think having the same mechanic for both Actions & Combats is a problem and could lead players to mix everything and make some mistakes, taking one deck for another etc ? ^^

I think having a redundent mechanic for actions and combat will simplify and streamline the game and would be less confusing. Just make sure the card types are well delineated (different colors and design/layout). Use a small number of cards to keep it simple. Your players only have to learn one mechanic so I think less mistakes or mixups would be made.

Louard
Louard's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/09/2010
I'm inclined to agree

drktron wrote:
le_renard wrote:

drktron wrote:
Give each player a hand of AP cards. Each turn they choose one to play but can't use it again until their hand runs out. That way they have to make interesting decisions of when to use their high AP cards.

This is something that I like... I already use this mechanic for the Combat system... do you think having the same mechanic for both Actions & Combats is a problem and could lead players to mix everything and make some mistakes, taking one deck for another etc ? ^^

I think having a redundent mechanic for actions and combat will simplify and streamline the game and would be less confusing. Just make sure the card types are well delineated (different colors and design/layout). Use a small number of cards to keep it simple. Your players only have to learn one mechanic so I think less mistakes or mixups would be made.

I'm inclined to agree with the idea of consolidating the cards. Heck, you could use that as a balancer. You have a hand of cards, some will give you more AP, some will have other effects, like drawing more cards or buffing units and some will allow you to attack at various strengths or whatever.. Or combinations of these.. like a card that will give you 2 APs or draw 2 cards... or 3 ap or +1attack etc. This way it becomes less about I have action cards and attack cards and it becomes just cards.

le_renard
le_renard's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/08/2010
Louard wrote:I'm inclined to

Louard wrote:
I'm inclined to agree with the idea of consolidating the cards.

You mean that I could merge the two decks into a single one with, let's say, 2 values on it ?

During the Movement/Action Phase, a player has to perform all his Movement before starting a fight...
That means that this player would have shown his cards...

Ex : Player A needs to move his Knight, make him start a fight and then Attack... the rest of the troops only have to move... Player A plays a 3AP/C+1 card... he moves his Knight for 1AP then declares the Fight for 1AP... there's 1AP left. He spends this AP to move Troop1, and plays another card 2AP/C+2 to move the rest of his troops.

During the next phase, the Combat Phase : Can Player A plays only a Combat card out of those 2 played cards ( the C+1 and the C+2 ) ?

What do you think ?

le_renard
le_renard's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/08/2010
This is what I toyed with

This is what I toyed with this evening...

- A single common deck of Action/Combat cards for both players.
- Both players start with a hand of 5 cards featuring two values : Action & Combat.
- Each turn, the player draws a number of cards up to his hand limit, if his hand is not complete.
- During the Action Phase, the player will have to chose one or more card from his hand to get some Action Points ( the Action value is used )
The cards used as Action Cards are discarded and placed face down on the table and cannot be used anymore.
- During the Combat Phase, the player may use one of the remaining cards in his hand per Combat Round ( the Combat value is used )
The cards used as Combat Cards are discarded and placed face down on the table and cannot be used anymore.
If the player runs out of Combat cards during a fight, he simply cannot add any bonus to the Hard Combat Stat of his troops !
- At the end of his turn, the player draws a number of cards up to his hand limit.

Louard
Louard's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/09/2010
Pretty much what I was thinking

I think you've definitely got something to try out there. The one danger, depending on the way the cards are balanced, is a one player lucks out and keeps getting just what he needs and the other player is left having to deal with what he gets. This, again, could be fixed with each player drawing from his own identical deck.. or each player having their own (theoretically) balanced deck.

le_renard
le_renard's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/08/2010
Forced Refresh...

I think I'd like the players to have a single common deck of cards.
I thought of this little trick to reduce ( not fix everything, I know ) the "I have nothing useful in hand right now !"

The main "currency" of the game is Support Points. S.P are vital because they allow you to win the first player auction and get the possibility to "hire" the Ally ( a neutral character that gives the player who hired him some bonuses or special possibilities during a turn ), buy items or pay for the lack of food for your troops, etc...

I thought of allowing the players to spend a certain amount of S.P at the beginning of their turn ( when they "refill" their hand of cards ) to "refresh" this hand completely... Player A draws 2 cards from the common deck to fill his hand up to its limit... bad luck, nothing interresting is in his hand at all ! He decides to spend 3 S.P to refresh his hand. He now must discard all his cards and place them face down on the table and draws a full hand of cards...

Do you think that could do the trick ?

drktron
drktron's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/18/2010
I think that would help.

I think that would help. Also you may consider using a face up draw mechanic like in ticket to ride. That would greatly lessen the likelihood of a "bad draw".

le_renard
le_renard's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/08/2010
Thanks for talking about

Thanks for talking about Ticket to Ride. I have just read the rules and I now see what you mean.
I like this face-up cards draw...

In Ticket to Ride, each player may choose one of the 5 face-up cards or make a blind draw...
In my game, you don't know how many cards the player will need... He may need 1 or 2 cards, or a full hand if he used all his cards. I guess that would make too many face-up cards around the board.
The positive side would be that the player may find it useful to be able to choose between those 3 or 5 face-up cards and then draws the rest of the card from the deck, blindly...
( but I see a strange thing here : if you choose 2 cards out of the 3 face-up ones, you must replace them immediately.. so now that there're 3 cards again, the player may choose again among those face-up cards, etc... that could lead to a slow-down.. don't you think ? )

drktron
drktron's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/18/2010
You can modify the mechanic

You can modify the mechanic however you want. I think three faceup cards would work better than five. If your concerned about time and analysis delay then just relenish the faceup cards at the end of the turn instead of after each draw. I like the mechanic because it effectively increases each players hand size therefore decreasing the likelihood of a completely bad draw. It also adds some decision making on taking a chance on a blind draw vs an open card where your opponent knows what you have.

le_renard
le_renard's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/08/2010
drktron wrote:I like the

drktron wrote:
I like the mechanic because it effectively increases each players hand size therefore decreasing the likelihood of a completely bad draw. It also adds some decision making on taking a chance on a blind draw vs an open card where your opponent knows what you have.

I totally agree...

drktron wrote:
If your concerned about time and analysis delay then just relenish the faceup cards at the end of the turn instead of after each draw.

Relenishing ( I didn't know the word, thanks ^^ ) the hand after each draw has a more logical feel to me... This idea of "there always must be 3 face up cards" is easier to grasp... the analysis delay should be balanced byt the fact that one doesn't necessarily want his opponent to know all the cards he has in hand...

le_renard
le_renard's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/08/2010
drktron wrote:I like the

drktron wrote:
I like the mechanic because it effectively increases each players hand size therefore decreasing the likelihood of a completely bad draw. It also adds some decision making on taking a chance on a blind draw vs an open card where your opponent knows what you have.

I totally agree...

drktron wrote:
If your concerned about time and analysis delay then just relenish the faceup cards at the end of the turn instead of after each draw.

Relenishing ( I didn't know the word, thanks ^^ ) the hand after each draw has a more logical feel to me... This idea of "there always must be 3 face up cards" is easier to grasp... the analysis delay should be balanced byt the fact that one doesn't necessarily want his opponent to know all the cards he has in hand...

drktron
drktron's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/18/2010
The word is actually

The word is actually replenish (sorry for the typo, I was using my phone).

le_renard
le_renard's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/08/2010
drktron wrote:The word is

drktron wrote:
The word is actually replenish (sorry for the typo, I was using my phone).

This sound much more "latin" to my french speaker's ears ^^
( yet, I didn't know the word ! )

Louard
Louard's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/09/2010
Face up options...

I'm actually a big fan of the face up draw options, like in TTR. I've used it in a number of prototypes myself. If I may suggest another method for balancing crappy card draws. Maybe the players can earn extra SP by discarding cards without effect.. So if you have three cards in your hand you don't think will be useful, you could discard them to get 3 SP instead of whatever was on the cards.

le_renard
le_renard's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/08/2010
Louard wrote:you could

Louard wrote:
you could discard them to get 3 SP instead of whatever was on the cards.

Discard 3 cards to get 3 SP or spend 3 SP to get 3 "fresh" cards... I like it...

le_renard
le_renard's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/08/2010
Just a little post to let you

Just a little post to let you know that I tested this new Action/Combat allowance "flow" and it works nicely so far...
Thanks a lot !
Time to move on to my next question... ^^
A new topic...

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut