Mystery Card Game — Thinking of the suits that will work

Maybe a SHIELD of some kind to "protect", "defend" or "Counter"?!?! I'd need to ponder the logistics of such a SUIT. IDK TBH. Just thought of Attack and Defend and thought that you could only ONE or the OTHER but not both.

Like ATTACK can attack but both cards can be "wounded". Where as DEFEND can act like a "blocker" and protect the defending card. Two DEFEND does nothing as a bad consequence...

Just thinking about it. It could alter the composition of the Player's Deck too.

That's something more to consider and there are variations that can be used to make COMBOS. More on that later. For now... I'm still thinking about MORE SUITS and how they can be used.

The RPS-3 mechanic doesn't need to be "absolute" like a traditional RPS-3. What I mean by this is instead of "BEATS", there could be a BONUS (like +3 Points) and this could impact the "SCORING" mechanic.

Like IF I have a "2 STAR" and I am battling a "4 SHIELD", the STAR PLAYER would earn a "+3 STAR BONUS" for a total of "5 STAR" vs. "4 SHIELD" and therefore the STAR Unit BEATS the SHIELD Unit 5 vs. 4.

Something like that could IN-BETWEEN "absolute" rules. This also gives me the possibility to ADD "Abilities" that BOOST stats too. I'm not 100% sure YET...! But this definitely sounds like a step in the right direction as I DISLIKE your Vanilla RPS-3 rules which means that one choice beats the next.

I like the idea of "Minimizing" the impact but also allowing the possibility of having different types of suits and that could add more STRATEGY to the "Deck Building" aspect of the game.

Again this is a WIP (Work-In-Progress) so we shall see... I'll keep you all informed as to the direction that I experiment with soon enough!

Cheers all.

Thanks for SHARING that @Noah McQ ... I like the Battle Mechanic of Card Jitsu. Yeah it's hard to design novel concept when there is so much OUT-THERE that we are not all aware of.

This was like 75% of the Combat idea except in MY game you can STACK multiple cards (up to 3 Cards). But yeah that's almost EXACTLY what I was going for:

It's interesting that you point out that game... Because I've never even heard of this Trading Card Game (Card Jitsu) and I would have never had any prior knowledge for when this game was around (2008 to 2017). So almost 10-Years ...

Very cool that you shared that with me... MY Angle will be:

And of course STACKS plus BONUSES make for a bit of a DIFFERENT feel than Card Jitsu... But real great that I've read more about that game and made my own a bit different.

Cheers and again thank you for sharing!

Is that IF I use Option #4 (Stack plus Bonuses for each Battle) ... It becomes very STRATEGIC for a player who is ALREADY AHEAD of the BATTLES to just RISK IT and try one more time BECAUSE they have a lead.

You're a bit playing with FIRE... In that it's DANGEROUS but MITIGATED with ODDS of SUCCESS versus odds of failure. This make the PYL much more flexible...

Yes there could be an UPSET if the opponent draw a STRONGER card and the whole plan goes down the crapper... But that's the deal with PYL: At your OWN RISK!

So I'm strongly leaning towards Option #4...

Sincerely.

Curious how an RPS-5 introduces "Morale"?! If you care to explain... I would be indeed interested in reading your "thought-process". As of now, I have only used an RPS-5 when there would be Five (5) Factions or Entities.

An RPS-5 is a CYCLIC version of 5 RPS-3s. That much I know and have learnt.

Not sure HOW(?) that works for Troop Morale.

But would like to understand more for sure... If you care to explain, I'm all ears because this is something beyond me ... You must have some kind of specific ideas which I don't know or have never heard before.

Sincerely.

But I'm a bit worried about the STACKING. I know @X3M talks a lot about how he must BALANCE his H/D ratio and measure his STATS too; well this for me is a bit similar.

My PRIMARY concern is that in a DECK of 16 cards when 5 are LOCATIONS and 1 is the HQ... That leaves 10 Unit cards. Ten (10) cards is not much ... If you do 2 Battles that's 6 cards which is 6 out of 16 which is almost ~40% of the Deck.

Plus you can have CYCLE 9 cards which means you advance into your 16 Card Deck by 9 cards. Not sure as to all the variations... I need to think more about the game and how it's supposed to WORK. As of today, it's just a bunch of ideas which are not 100% cohesive, they still need more rules and more designing needs to happen.

I have a TON of abilities too since I learned the METHOD to making Magic: the Gathering (Magic) cards. Follow the rules for each aspect of the game isolate that portion and design abilities that respect the rules. Later on when the game becomes more established BREAK the rules and design newer abilities that are over the top.

I currently have 175 different abilities in my spreadsheet and 32 unique ones with different CYCLE counts (which vary from 0 to 9).

Like for example:

What this ability does is CONDENSE Units in a bunch to allow for a FUTURE STACK attack during the next Deck run-through. Since it is a "0 Cycle" your turn ends after you perform the ability.

Or another example:

What this ability does is MAKE the FUTURE less predictable by ADDING +2 cards to the cycle for your NEXT Action (3 Actions per turn) or if this is the 3rd Action to the 1st Action of your NEXT TURN.

Stuff like that... I had FUN defining a bunch of neat abilities (like I said there are currently 32 UNIQUE ones). And there are a total of 175 different abilities (with different Cycle counts) when you factor in the variations.

Anyhow that's probably more than I wanted to SHARE. But it gives you a better idea of what I am working on.

I will keep in mind that Option #4 is your preferred method of play and we'll see if it WORKS well or not. From there if it's not feasible it'll probably be Option #3. We shall see.

Cheers everyone.

I came upon another "Card Game" which is a "micro game" and it gave me some ideas as to HOW(?) to handle the "Combat" and that's great... But I am in a way STUCK again... WHY(?) Because the game has ATM no resources so there is NO METHOD to "DRAFT" units to engage in "Combat"...

The whole "Combat" is resolved... And is PRETTY GOOD.

But HOW(?) do you draft the units is still something I have yet to figure out...

There needs to be a KIND of "Resource Engine" or "Resource Planning", etc. etc.

That's where I AM STUCK.

***

And I've seriously re-thought some of the game and to see HOW(?) I can implement my NEW ideas from this other "Micro Card Game". Strangely I feel like I can "borrow" some mechanics from "Magic: the Gathering" (MtG) too... Hehehe. Yeah, I've got some GOOD IDEAS.

But still NOT 90% complete. I'm about 65% done... What is missing is some of the progression (engine) on the resource side of matter and that would go a LONG WAY in helping this design.

For NOW, I'm fresh out of "ideas"... I will put this on-hold. Until I get some firm ideas about "resources" and how to create some kind of BASIC "engine"...

If anyone has ideas or feedback you'd like to share, please feel free to reply to this comment.

Cheers.

Note #1: And don't worry the MtG IDEAS are NOT like in MtG. It's just a few foundational bricks may surface making the cards feel FAMILIAR but yet are 100% different in implementation AND usage. No copying is being done. And I've just gone and busted my AUDIT for the "Design Space" by INTRODUCING NEW Mechanics to the game. Some older ideas are gone and the newer ones probably need a re-audit. We'll see how long it take to make that happen in the not so distant future!

My "Resources". The NEW plan is to use an RPS-5 for combat types. So basically instead of have a resource like "Melee" you can also have "Melee", "Stealth" AND "Explosive" or three (3) Options of the "Resources" required.

This is just an IDEA ATM. I am exploring how to introduce MORE "flexibility" in the "Resources" because with this being a Micro Card Game, you have LESS Cards and they need to be able to "do more".

This would mean that EACH ONE (1) Resource would have three (3) options making it easier to collect the correct set of Resources for reaching an Objective. I call them Resources but it's a question of Units. Again this is not a Wargame, it will be a Micro Card Game.

So if a Base requires you to have forces of "TWO (2) Melee" to capture it... (Yeah it's turning out to be a real cool Combat Card Game). I've never seen this in any card game... But I'm not sure if there are other Card Games or Board Games that use this option. I can't say it is UNIQUE because I am unsure as to the complete repertoire of games using RPS mechanics.

I had the idea because I was thinking that Aerial Units may be less readily available in the game and I didn't want that to mean that it's harder to make an Aerial Strike because there are LESS "Aerial Units". And so while those cards/Units may be NEAT and COOL ... Not having them is a DRAG and DISAPPOINTING. Especially when they are higher ranking in Rareness and that means LOWER "frequency" and "availability".

But by using the RPS-5 we can use "Is Beaten By" to determine which Units can "replace" the "Aerial" Units by "Aerial" (Identical), "Ranged" or "Explosive".

Making the collection process a bit simpler and less "restrictive" when it comes to some types of Units which are perhaps "not as readily available" in frequency.

Like "Stealth Bomber" is "Aerial", "Explosive" and "Stealth". It's going to be a "Legendary" Unit one of the more sought after cards for COLLECTORS but for the PLAYERS not so much of a Deep Impact since there are ALTERNATIVE cards that are "Common" Units which are more readily available. So while my "Stealth Bomber" is a "Black Ops" Card (Legendary), "SAM Site" is a "Specialized" Card (Uncommon) which is "Aerial" and "Explosive".

Definitely some potential in what I am aiming to do for the "Genre" and what I WANT to do on a personal level (what my Micro Card Game will look like).

More about this as I work out more of the "kinks".

Best!

Note #1: I would have a LONG TIME ago released the Tentative Name of this product but seeing as someone USED one of my Game Names in development (and I'm totally pissed because his game is not even RELEASED yet...), I don't want someone else taking the name of the game seeing as I've already checked and there are no Game Names (Video, Board or Card Games) and I want to ensure it remains that way!

Note #2: This direction seems more "perfected" than the combat mechanics with the RPS-3 and the BONUS system. All of that is GONE now. I also need to re-audit the "Design Space" since that too has changed dramatically based on this last comment and how the game has EVOLVED quite a bit.

More on this tomorrow... TBD. But definitely moving forwards.

Well I was just THINKING that the "PHASE" could be the better option. Why? Well it offers more choice to the players. When I mean choice, I mean that let's assume I went with the "TYPE" of combat and I used a RPS-5, this means that certain ACTIONS can occur depending on the "TYPE" of "Resource" Cards in-play.

So IF my Unit has a "MELEE" Action and I have a "MELEE" "Resource" Card in-play, I can PERFORM that Action (or I garner the BENEFIT of that Action).

While this sounds OK... Look at the alternative:

If I have specific "PHASE" like "Scout / Assault / Defend" would mean that depending on the "PHASE" different options would be made available to the player and that would mean that depending on the "PHASE" you options would VARY ... Making the gameplay very "fluid". More so that the "TYPE" (IMHO).

Again these are some preliminary ideas and I NEED to figure out a "DEFEND" which would be like a "Counter" to an "ASSAULT should be implemented to allow some type of retaliation but also NOT 100% end the conflict by countering it... But puts on some kind of DELAY until additional Units can come into play to ensure that the maximum Power is played making Countering not possible.

So it would be to ensure that an EARLY strike "could"(?!) be countered but not in all situations.

My goal is to DELAY the destruction of "Bases" that might be easier targets but still with the right DEFENSE require more "Attack Power" to destroy them (the weaker bases).

***

I still need to think about it some more... Because there is some DISCONNECT with the "Resources" and "Unit" recruiting. Not sure how BOTH are expected to work TOGETHER.

Let me come back to this at a later time.

Sincerely.

So now I have FIVE (5) General Actions and they go as follows:

- Scout: This will allow you to discover a "Base".

- Attack: This will allow you to destroy or conquer a "Base".

- Defend: This will allow you to protect a "Base" (to a certain extent).

- Cyber-War: This is a bonus way of attacking or scouting a "Base".

- Support: This is a bonus way to support your units in play.

***

The ONLY "Actions" which are REQUIRED is "Scout" and "Attack"; the rest are optional and can help in destroying and conquering a "Base".

Why is this WAY COOL?

Well firstly it means that the QUANTITY of "General Actions" can change from one edition to the NEXT... Even if some are REQUIRED "Actions". This means also the "Sub-Actions", because as it stands currently I will have FIVE (5) "Sub-Actions" per "General Action" for a total of twenty-five (25) different types of Actions in the "core" game.

And that is why this "PHASE" Version is really cool!

***

Just wanted to discuss "Race for the Galaxy" (RACE) and what INSIGHT that I gained. Obviously this is NOTHING like RACE. It was just a question of do I do "PHASES" or "TYPES" for the Actions. It's a bit closer to RACE in that you have three (3) PHASES per Unit with the possibility of having up to THREE (3) of the same "PHASES" with different "Sub-Actions" depending on the nature of the "Sub-Action"...

The "TYPES" (as a reminded) was leaning towards a more "Magic: The Gathering" (MtG) sort of approach where the "Resources" would dictate which Actions would be available. I like this LESS even if it COULD work because it is LESS flexible. I prefer the DYNAMISM of the "PHASES" because it allows me to introduce NEW "General Actions" and "Sub-Actions" as needed by the future versions of the game.

All that to say that I'm still WORKING on it. But now I have a couple more elements and components in-line with what it is I am trying to achieve!

Best!

Although the goal was to design a Micro Card Game, I am THINKING about bringing the Deck count of cards from 15 to 30 Units. And the Bases from 3 to 6. Why? Because I feel like 15 Cards (Units) when you start playing cards in your Area of Play reduces DRAMATICALLY the number of cards in your Deck. Now that you have FIVE (5) "General Actions" that means 30 "Units" a factor of 5x (25) plus five (5).

The idea being that you NEED TWO (2) Booster Packs plus some additional game parts in order to PLAY the game.

This makes 100% sense and in a way, it solidifies the FORMAT and DECK.

Why is this important???

Well playing cards into your "Area of Play" thins out your Deck. This will of course AFFECT the CYCLE mechanic severely and with LESS cards, it makes the Deck feel "empty" or that some more CYCLIC cards too influential. One Ability has the capabilities to CYCLE 9 cards. If you only have 18 cards: 15 "Units" and 3 "Bases", the problem is with 15 "Units", if 5 are used to produce Resources that leaves 10 Cards in your Hand. And if you have 3 more as "Units" that means 7 Cards left over. Just not the direction I want to go in...

I'd prefer a STOCKIER Deck and have more Cyclic Cards that allow you to traverse a Deck "quicker" but still in a HEALTHY way (not the 7 "Units" issue from above)...

Although this makes the game LESS of a Micro Game (Which are usually < 20 Cards), I'm doing what is best for the GAME and to ensure it is HIGHLY strategic and makes sense to play without worrying about mechanics failing due to the fact of a LOW Card count...

More on this soon enough.

Best!

Like "Tapping" which means "Rotate" a card 90 Degrees to show it has been used. Or "Exhausting" which means "Place that card" at the bottom of your Deck. And you can have "Exhaust X Cards" meaning that "X" Cards go to the bottom of your Deck, etc. etc.

I don't think I've seen that Mechanic in "Magic: the Gathering" (Magic) TBH. But I am not 100% aware of ALL "Mechanics" in Magic. So there may be an "Exhaust" mechanic on some cards like Sorceries, Instants and Enchantments. Again I don't know ALL of the cards that exist, there are like 20,000+ cards. So my bet is that cards are probably in existence that use a SIMILAR mechanic.

But yeah your BUILD or CONSTRUCTION phase of a Deck has to be such that it can ACCOMMODATE a bunch of different types of "Bases" in order to ensure Victory. Having a PERFECTED Deck is not possible for all opponents... Ergo the fact that the game is very fluid and changes in response to an opponent's "Bases" and Deck.

I am usually OPEN with regards to the NAMES of my games. But I got screwed over with "Battle Botz" which some guy "Reserved" the name for a game that is NOT already out... You can check out his "crappy" concept here:

https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/422654/battle-botz

Battle Botz *my version" is another Micro Card Game. Yeah I've been working on these SMALLER sized games and will see which one MATURES first and allows me to Publish another GAME which is COOL yet not too complicated.

For "Mystery" Card Game, I have plenty to work on to PERFECT the design. It is still very much a "Work-In-Progress" (WIP).

But thanks for your interest. I don't mind answering questions about it.

Sincerely.

Like (maybe) a "Base" card can have TWO (2) Bonuses that it awards. One is a Catch-Up Mechanic and the other is a Game Reward. IDK. This is still in my mind and I need to figure out what works and what doesn't.

I like the idea of "Game Reward" but on the other side of the fence, you just Conquered a "Base" and are further AHEAD than your opponent. Which means that I see the need to BALANCE it out with a "Catch-Up" Mechanic for the player who just lost a "Base". Know what I mean???

So I'm not 100% sure just YET.

Definitely in-design and looking for more ideas to try to BALANCE out the game a bit. It's about 50% there and getting more and more solid each and every passing day as I figure out more about what is possible.

Best!

Again I've seen this is other "Micro Card Games" and thought that each Unit would need to have a "Resource" SIDE and a "Action" SIDE. I have since concluded that the "Resource" SIDE is not useful for "Bases". The "Action" SIDE can have from one (1) to three (3) Actions that add up to whatever total you need to Scout or Conquer a "Base".

So my thinking goes a bit like this:

Each "Base" has an Unit Stat which determines how MANY (in total) Units can be used to Conquer and/or Capture a "Base". Each "Attack" Action by a Unit contributes to this Unit Stat Total and so you can't just DRAFT all the Units randomly because that won't work. You need to CHOOSE which one are more appropriate for each PHASE (Scout or Conquer).

Same could go with each side of the "Base" cards... Giving you a VALUE which dictates HOW MUCH "Capacity" you can have when attacking a "Base". No Overkill such that all you do if flip over 10 Units and defeat the enemy "Base".

The goal is not to make it TOO COMPLICATED but to also not allow for DUMB strategies (break the game) which means just DRAFT 10 Units and then you AUTOMATICALLY conquer ANY "Base" in the game.

I got a GOOD idea just now: Each "Base" would state the three (3) STATS that need to be reached and would also dictate the RPS-5 allowable substitution rules. Not forcibly but in many instances.

So SOME Units would be better at SCOUTING, others would be better at SUPPORTING and still other can be good at DEFENDING, etc. etc. And this would create interesting SYNERGIES rather than simple STAT conformity. Like COMBOs...

Definitely some GOOD IDEAS. We'll see how they fare as part of the DESIGN and then see IF I can playtest a Deck (prototype) when the Design is more mature.

Keep you all posted!

Like I said, I don't have problems SHARING information... The only thing that I am keeping PRIVATE is the "Name of the Card Game". And that's because I don't want anyone COPYING my name before I release the product or launch some kind of preview campaign on Board Game Geek.

As you can see it's a "G.I. Joe" Comic Book Layout for my "Mystery Card Game". My project is still in it's infancy ... So this sample is EARLY but gives you an idea what to expect.

Let me know what you guys think... Is it cool? Do you have feedback or any ideas that you guys want to share, feel free to reply to this comment.

Best!

Note #1: For the moment the Artwork is just a PLACEHOLDER and I'm not even sure that Card #001 ... Is going to be an "Extraction" card. Nor do I know if I want this same character as currently ("Snake Eyes") but for the moment this looks nice and feels in the direction that I want to go in.

Geof can draw as good if not BETTER artwork. The art quality is not an issue, what matters is the licensing of the Brand from Hasbro or working with a Publisher given that the game is GOOD/SOLID.

And when I say Geof can draw better... He used to DRAW for Marvel and worked on the G.I. Joe Comic series. So he's a NATURAL Joe.

So I have the CONCEPT of "Ready" and "Deployed" Units. Ready means just that: you can "Deploy" them given the fact that you are willing to spend 1 AP and flip over the card to the STAT side with the different options available to the player.

This is fine and makes 100% sense and WORKS. With a bunch of stats (25 to be exact), five (5) per each category. Again that's okay.

But before I had the CONCEPT of "Capturing" a Unit. And I still WANT this provided it can WORK (somehow)?! A "Captured" Unit cannot be "Deployed". It must be converted to a "Ready" Unit given some kind of "process"...?

What I have been thinking is that EACH Unit has a Value from 0 to 9 in the TOP LHS of the card which is INVERTED. This is the amount of cards that MUST be CYCLED and the card then becomes exhausted and READY on the next GO-AROUND.

So if the value is EIGHT (8), you need to cycle 8 cards into the DECK and then the card becomes FREE and is READY again.

Something like that... I will continue to think about it some MORE. TBD.

Again if you have some ideas, feedback or have questions, feel free to REPLY and I will do my best to address any of them.

Cheers all.

Note #1: I am still thinking about the "Capturing" mechanics as a way to DELAY a player from simply blowing through all his cards and using the best cards in his or her own Deck to easily win the game. This is sorta a counter mechanic. Again more thought about it. I'm not at all sure HOW(?) to handle it TBH...

I tried a bunch of buttons and so forth to see what would be BEST... And I ultimately settled for a ROUND White Circle with a Black Outline. It was the least options to NOT detract from the remainder of the CARD.

I am still working on the "Mechanics" for the COMBAT RESOLUTION. I know it's an RPS-5 and therefore there are two (2) values that BEAT and two (2) values that are BEATEN and one (1) value which TIES.

So my thoughts about COMBAT is that they span on THREE (3) READY Units. And the winning goes something like this:

A> If the attacker BEATS more BATTLES between 3 READY Units, the opponent's first READY Unit is "captured" and that card gets flipped up-side down.

B> Otherwise nothing happens and combat ENDS.

The DEFENDING player can NEVER "Capture" an opponent only protect his own Unit.

Here are some explanation to better comprehend the COMBAT mechanic:

Example #1: 1 BEATS attacking player, 2 TIES: 1 vs. 0 = +1 the opponent's Unit is "Captured"

Example #2: 1 BEATS attacking player, 1 BEATS defending player, 1 TIE: 1 vs. 1 = 0 the "Capture" FAILS.

Example #3: 2 BEATS attacking player, 1 BEATS defending player: 2 vs. 1 = +1 the opponent's Unit is "Captured".

Those examples show that the ATTACKING player must BEAT his opponent in order to manage to "Capture" a READY Unit.

The current player may only ATTACK ONCE per TURN and it costs 1 Action Point (AP).

That's a bit of an explanation on HOW combat is going to work.

You'd look at the card and go: "What the heck is that supposed to be?"

My answer the STATs of this card in the Top LHS corner:

3 Firepower, 3 Resistance and An Initiative Roll.

So this card has the potential of being a 6/6 card with the best dice roll...

I really LIKE it. It took a couple of hours to make the STAT counter and it was something that came to me late a few nights ago (like Thursday night). I was closing up and I was thinking: "Maybe if I used a HEXAGON ... I could have 6 positions with a couple colors..."

And then seeing the finished product ... Really looks cool and is very NOVEL!

The actual HEX was designed in Illustrator and then COPY-PASTED into Photoshop. This means that the HEX is a VECTOR object and can be RESIZED to whatever size I may need as opposed to ONLY a Pixel-based object which distorts with every scaling (pixelization and jaggies).

Not a problem in this specific scenario... Enjoy!