Skip to Content

Creature combat mechanic card game

27 replies [Last post]
jedite1000
jedite1000's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/18/2017
card gae temp.png
icons.png
temp card.png

I have an idea for a combat card game which i think it quite different from my other ideas

So here is my idea. Each Deck comes with a leader card, the leader card determines which creatures (spawns) you can play. Now you can add any spawn creatures in your deck but some leaders will work well with spawn creatures. such as if my leader is an insect then i can play a level 1 insect spawn for free once per turn
Leader card
Each leader has a knowledge number, the higher the number the more cards you can draw from your deck each turn
So if my leader knowledge is a 3 then at the start of my turn i can draw until i have 3 cards in my hand, so no draw 1 card at the start of my turn, this is straight up draw until you have 3 cards in your hand. There is no deck out so once you have emptied your deck, shuffle the discard gy back into your deck
Battle cards
Battle cards will be a bit different compared to other battle cards from different card games, instead of effects typed as text, the abilities are all icons. Most battle cards will have the same ability icons with added effects, which ill give an example. The battle card has a sword icon which represents attack, the sword is linked to another icon which is lets say a poison damage. Once you attack, if you are succesful with the attack then the next icon abilty activates which in this case is poison which when used, your opponent loses 1 hp at the start of their turn.
When it comes to attacking, there is a hit/miss randomness to it so when you declare an attack you roll a die, if it is 4-6 you hit for 1 damage. if it is a 1-3 then you miss, but that is not all the roll 1 and 6 is a factor, so lets say you roll a 6 which is a critical hit, that means your opponents creature loses all their shield plus 1 heart (ill get to that later) If you roll a 1 it is a critical miss which means your creature hits itself and loses 1 heart
Most creatures comes with a shield. Level 1 creatures do not have shield, however if your opponent has shield on their creature then you must attack through it before attacking the creatures hp, so lets say a creature has 2 shields and 2 hearts. if you failed to remove the shield this turn then next turn the shield regenerates back to full, however if you were able to remove the shield and attack 1 hp, then next turn the shield still regenerates but not the hp.

Creature levels
Each creature has a level max level is 4. level 1 creatures are usually the easiest to summon while the higher level creatures are harder however there is alternative ways to summon higher levels which ill get to later.
All creatures have a summon cost which in this game means an action cost which ill get into next
Actions
Once per turn you have 4 actions to spend, depending how you use it is up to you
the action has 4 ways to be spent
Play
combat
defend
incubate/retreat
Level 1 creatures requires 1 action to play. you can spend all your actions this turn to play 4 level 1 creatures if you choose to. higher level creatures require more action points to play. so if you want to play a level 2 creature you must spend 2 action points, the same as a level 3 and 4 which would require 3 or 4 action points
Combat is as stated, you use an action to attack the enemy. Attacking with 1 creature only requires 1 action point, you can attack with other creatures if you have the action point to spend
Defend is if you choose to defend you leader or shield/guardian stack, you can move 1 creature from your combat zone into your defend zone and on your opponent,s turn, your opponent must attack your defending creature if he chooses to attack your shield stack. if your opponent does not attack your defending creature then on your next turn, you must place the defending creature back into your combat zone
incubate/retreat. On your turn you place a creature in your combat zone into the incubate zone, if a creature is in this zone then your opponent cant attack that creature, the creature can remain in this zone for as long as it wants, this zone is also good for evolving creatures which ill get into next
evolving creatures
If you have a creature in your incubate zone then that creature is getting ready to evolve, each passing turn on your turn add a token onto that creature. once you have enough tokens on that creature which is indicated on the card, you can then play a higher level creature from your hand or deck onto that incubated creature. Playing creatures from your incubator is free and if you have evolved a creature then you can play the higher level creature for free. some higher level creatures come with added abilties if you evolved into that creature from the incubator
shield/guardian stack
at the start of the game, both players send ther top 5 cards from their deck into their shield/guardian zone (i have not come up with a good name for that zone so ill call it shield for now)
During your turn, you are free to attack your opponents stack, doesnt matter if they have combat cards in play or not, when you attack a card in the stack, if your opponent doesnt have a defending card then they must take the attacked card and add it to their hand. adding cards to your hand from the shield stack doesnt count towards your leaders knowledge. so you can potentially have 3 or more cards in your hand if your hand exeeds the leaders knoweldge. however you cannot draw any more cards if your hand is at the maximum or more than your leaders knowedge. Once your opponent has no more cards in their shield stack then all you need to do is attack once more time at the leader to win the game

that is all i can think of right now. what do you think?

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Small comment about dice rolling

I just wanted to point out that Gamers (Adult ones) don't really like the randomness of dice rolling. I know you have one (1) die and it can be standard 1d6 (1 to 6) which you can "tailor" to the various cards, like rolling a "1" can be a critical for a "Pixie" for example...

But the plain fact of the matter is Adult (18+) gamers HATE rolling dice. For them it's like the end of the world type of scenario... How do I know this? Well I had a thread (poll) over at BGG and asked what gamers thought of the two (2) games that I am working on. One of them featured dice rolling as a way of varying the the amount of cards being drawn.

The point I am trying to make is that the die 1d6 (which was custom 1 to 3 values) still annoyed many of the BGG Gamers. Most said things like: "Can't you just remove the die and make it 3 cards per turn???" Suggestions as to how to REMOVE the randomness of play.

Anyways this is a long way of saying: MANY, MANY, MANY Gamers HATE games that use dice in them. They dislike the randomness and also dislike having to roll the dice every turn...

Just something you should be aware of...

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Another hard lesson learnt by practice

Using Dry Erase Markers seems like a good way to keep track of Health and various abilities on cards. But as in this thread:

http://www.bgdf.com/node/22613

I illustrate what is wrong with them. Just like dice, don't use Dry Erase Markers unless you are using some form of "disposable" writing surface.

This is yet another Hard Learnt lesson from practical experience.

How does it relate??? Just because in addition to avoiding dice, avoid Dry Erase Marker too.

Cheers!

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
About the Leader card

This sounds a bit like Magic's Commander Style of Play. It is also like a test version of "Monster Keep" (MK) where you would choose ONE (1) Monster and equip him with all kinds of weapons and items to defeat his opponent.

Rest assured, that version did NOT last. After watching some videos about HOW people play a game which is similar... I found the game play to be a bit boring. So I had been thinking something similar.

But I abandoned the "Leader" concept and am focusing on a "three (3) Lane" approach since for MK it offers more possibilities and can be played in a rather short span in time (10 to 15 minutes).

My MAIN reason to "Abandon" the "Leader" concept was because I saw another CCG that did EXACTLY what I wanted to do... And realized that this format is not fun at all. Maybe your game can make this "Leader" concept more enjoyable.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
About your Icon ideas

Know that IF you ONLY have icons... realize that you can only have a certain amount of them. Think like 5 or 6. WHY? Because most people will forget the meaning of them and that will "frustrate" many players.

And from experience, EPIC "The Card Game" designed by "White Wizard Games" has a TON of "Ability Names" (including but not limited to: Unbreakable, Airborne, Ambush, Banish, Blitz, Breakthrough, Recall, Recycle, Righteous, Unbanishable, etc.)

If you have a BUNCH of icons... It may be hard to KNOW what each one means and is used for. In MK, I also have 6 icons:

A> Three (3) Attacks: Melee -> Range -> Flying -> Melee

B> Three (3) Elements: Terra -> Aqua -> Flama -> Terra

Both are separate RPS-3 and are simpler to remember because they follow standard or "Logical" associations/rules.

But yeah I think the most you could do is eight (8) Icons. More than this it will make the game un-functional.

So while I applaud the use of LESS "writing", a max of 8 icons should be your target ... See if you can design the game with this kind of constraints.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Action Points (APs)

Your idea about using APs is a valid one. But I feel like FOUR (4) is a bit arbitrary. Why not FIVE (5)??? Usually people like more balanced numbers like 1, 3 and 5 ... And favor odd numbers (IDK why ... it's just true).

You have 4 APs or 5 APs... Which seems more "balanced"? Five (5), Right?!

But generally speaking, your thoughts on APs sounds pretty reasonable. Nothing about what you wrote strikes me as "bad" or "unreasonable"...

You can also INTRODUCE a "NEW" type of card: BONUS APs. Things like: "Frenzy: +1 APs this turn only, discard after use" or something similar.

Of course that kind of Ability can be an Icon and given "Frenzy" can give bonus APs to a player...

So that sounds very cool!

jedite1000
jedite1000's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/18/2017
thanks for the tips, as for

thanks for the tips, as for the icons i will have a very limited pool of icons, the only difference on the cards would probably be an element type icon such as an insect is part toxic and will have a toxic ability if a bug is part fire will have a fire ability which is different from the toxic ability etc. example of icons on the first page

I am still on the fence with the dice mechanic, like if i remove it, then it is just a generic this monster kills this monster then this monster and its always successful, since there are no power levels of cards, it is based on hp and shield system, 1 attack would always equal 1 damage to shield or heart.

Dont know any alternatives i can think of atm

I could add an extra ap, its just 4 i can only think of, i dont know what else to add? like if i want to play a level 4 creature i would have 1 point left? would that be fair to the opponent? i used 4 points then use the last point to attack with my level 4?

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
No worries

jedite1000 wrote:
thanks for the tips...

No worries, I just wanted you to benefit from my own experiences.

jedite1000 wrote:
I am still on the fence with the dice mechanic...

I believe the way to get around this is like in Magic, TradeWorlds and many other "card-based" games: you have a ATTACK and a DEFENSE. This sets up a duality: your opponent may have STRONG "defense" and you have poor "attack" meaning he can't be beaten and a similar case for yourself.

That's why cards in Magic like +1 Attack or +1/+1 Atk and Dfs... Are designed.

jedite1000 wrote:
I could add an extra ap...

The idea is NOT to restrict to ONE (1) thing per turn. You should be able to PLAY a creature from your hand and be able to battle with others (if you have summoning-sickness), etc. The idea if APs is offering CHOICE. It's not a good idea to JUST do "X" on a turn... That will lead to a longer "game time" and this may not be a side-effect that you want for your game.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
More on turn and APs

questccg wrote:

jedite1000 wrote:
I could add an extra ap...

The idea is NOT to restrict to ONE (1) thing per turn. You should be able to PLAY a creature from your hand and be able to battle with others (if you have summoning-sickness), etc. The idea of APs is offering CHOICE. It's not a good idea to JUST do "X" on a turn... That will lead to a longer "game time" and this may not be a side-effect that you want for your game.

Take "TradeWorlds" what you can do on a Turn is: A, B, C and D.

A> "Action": choose 1 of 10 Roles/Actions

B> "Buy": buy cards from your piles

C> "Configure": launch starships to attack your opponent(s)

D> "Discard": Refresh your hand to five (5) cards

So you have a bit of "choice" in how you want to play your turn... You want the players to feel like they made the WISEST "choice" with their APs...

jedite1000
jedite1000's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/18/2017
hmmm yeah needs to be

hmmm yeah needs to be somewhere in the middle dont want too little dont want too much, i dont want to be like other games too much, dont want it to be like tradeworlds or whatever

more unique the better, thats what im trying to go with

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
What I'm saying is that you'll need to PLAYTEST it out!

The number of APs will be determined by an average value of what you WANT to allow in a single TURN. I'm not saying to do like "TradeWorlds" or other games, I'm just say that you need to understand that PLAYING A SINGLE CARD on your turn ... is insufficient for most games.

And that's where I'm comparing things. To TradeWorlds because I've done hundreds of Live Demos at the Comic Con and at a FLGSs in Verdun. This has been over several years (I think 3 years)... And I've seen what PLAYERS like...

There is no way playing a SINGLE card is "enough" to do on one turn.

Granted there is no worries for "Analysis-Paralysis" but I don't think you've got that kind of problem... It's more about PLAYING. You need the game to FLOW from one player to another and you probably want a good 1 to 3 card circulation during a turn.

In "TradeWorlds" we've got it around 5 cards per turn.

Your game is a Card Game... So you've got to figure out: "HOW MANY cards do I PLAY with per turn?"

And I can't help you with that... Again it's all about PLAYTESTING and seeing if turns take too long (too much APs) or too short/lacking in substance (too little APs).

jedite1000
jedite1000's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/18/2017
I did a little test like a

I did a little test like a quick 5 min and yeah adding more ap is more ideal, at first i added 1 extra, it was better but i decide on adding another so a total of 6 ap to spend i think is pretty ideal

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
I agree with you 100%

questccg wrote:
...I'm just say that you need to understand that PLAYING A SINGLE CARD on your turn ... is insufficient for most games...

And this is why I found Redakai SO BORING! All you do each turn is PLAY a single card. So you draw cards into your hand and play one (1) each turn.

From what I have seen from this, even with all the fancy artwork and lenticular 3D effects ... The game is so freaken boring. How do I know this??? Well I watched a playthru video between a Son and his Father.

It went like "You play 1 card, I die" to "I play 1 card, and then you die".

This demonstrates how POOR a game was designed and how most of the budget was to make the game "fancy"! Yeah it LOOKS cool... But it's not so cool to actually sit down and PLAY.

jedite1000
jedite1000's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/18/2017
with my game at its current

with my game at its current development would you consider the game boring or intriguing? even with the action point limit raised to 6?
.
Like if no one likes the dice mechanics what would be an alternative, i dont want it one sided when it comes to attacking like you will be too dominant if you have like 5 level 4 creatures on your field.

i guess considering you need action points to attack, maybe thats the only limit needed, like you wouldnt want to waste ann action point to attack only for it to miss. maybe i dont need anything

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
I can't tell about the game you need to playtest!

6 APs sounds good... I think you are figuring out that if you only have 6 APs even if you deploy powerful creatures... You might be able to use a subset of them.

The other issue was the use of dice.

Here's an idea you may or may not like. Before a turn, a "draft" occurs of SIX (6) cards randomly chosen from a special deck. These are Action Cards (like attack, etc.) and there are multiple copies of each card... (or action)

What each player does is choosing one (1) card per turn, alternating between BOTH players. Until all 6 cards are drafted.

Each player can then ON HIS TURN decide which actions he will play using the cards they have drafted.

What this does is remove the need for APs and dice...

Let me explain further...

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Then players alternate playing the Actions the drafted

Let's say you actions are:

1> Ready (ready a creature for combat by playing it from your had)

2> Attack (use one of your creatures to attack an opposing one)

3> Defend (forcibly ensure that a specific creature cannot be attacked)

4> Incubate (as you mentioned earn tokens to upgrade a creature)

That's what I got from the OP. In the Common Draft Deck there are 5 of each of these cards (so a total of 20 cards to draft from).

You don't need dice, you don't need Action Points (APs)... All you need is a shared common Deck of 20 cards which players draft from.

What this does is determine how a player will REACT to the opponent's draft selection. Like if Player #1 drafts an "Attack", Player #2 can draft a "Defend" to counter the potential attack when it occurs.

This would greatly improve the fluidity of the game and make it LESS "random" and more of a Drafting Mechanic using the 6 card draft...

Again this is only ONE (1) idea to resolve dice and APs. And by getting rid of both, you can use a SIMPLE but effective drafting mechanic which allows for predictable chaos! (LOL)

jedite1000
jedite1000's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/18/2017
yeah its ideal but i dont

yeah its ideal but i dont want to have too many different type of cards in the game, AP is fine right now, the dice ill remove, it will just be a normal combat system, as i stated earlier there is no strength numbers or higher attack power wins, its just a simple attack once to destroy a shield or a heart etc. i think it differentiates enough from other combat tcg such as ygo and magic

edit:
Made a quick template of a level 2 example
Only level 2 or higher will have bonus evolution abilities

Anything i should move around or not needing if the card is already self-explanatory?

jedite1000
jedite1000's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/18/2017
Ive been thinking, instead of

Ive been thinking, instead of spending action points on summoning monsters what about both players sharing the summoning cost, lets there is a gauge that has up to 10 numbers on both sides representing the player, player 1 is on the left and player 2 on the right. the first player starts with the number 3, and that player can play any monster they wish however when they play a monster the gauge will move closer to the opponents number, so if i start with 3, i play a level monster i move the gauge to the right and place it on the number 2, i can then play another monster lets say a level 4 i move the gauge from number 2 to the opponents players number 2. as soon as the gauge moves to the opponents side my turn ends. That means i might have to give each monster different summoning costs instead of 1-4. so with that you can a powerful monster turn 1 but doing so will give your opponent more points to work with on their turn.

I know there are games that use that system, so there are no games that are always 100% unique

just another brainstorming, i might not go with it, im just seeing how it will play out

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
IDK why you are making it more complicated?!

KISS: "Keep It Simple and Straightforward".

You had APs ... Go back to APs and do something like this (if you wanted a concept similar to what it is you are proposing):

A> Player 1 plays and uses up APs. How many??? This will be figured out during playtesting.

B> Player 2 REACTS to Player 1 and gets the SAME AMOUNT of APs + "Extra"

C> The "Extra" are bonus APs that the opponent can use to better defend himself.

So if I as Player 1 use 5 APs, my opponent gets 6 APs to immediately REACT (think Blocking)... That determines how the "Leader or Boss" is affected by an opposing attack, spell or artifact used against Player 2.

Isn't SIMPLER just BETTER???

NomadArtisan
Offline
Joined: 12/12/2011
I have to comment on

I have to comment on dice.
Adult gamers don't inherently hate dice. There are countless successful games that use and even revolve around dice.
I think adult players tend to dislike dice in card games because they add an additional layer of randomness on top of the random card draw.
That being said, I think the problem lies in randomness that can't be mitigated rather than a problem inherent to dice.
For example, if you had a card game in which players just draw and play the top card of their deck every turn, it would feel extremely random. This is mitigated in most card games by allowing players to draw a number of cards, and select the best one to play from among those.
Similar strategies can be used with dice.
Dice in a card game CAN work and benefit the game when designed and incorporated well.
I'd recommend taking a look at an older CCG called 'Warlord' which uses D20s for attacks, as well as the newer game Ashes: rise of the phoenixborn which I believe uses dice for the turn's resources (not amount, just type).

I will say though, I very much dislike roll a D6, 4+ succeeds mechanics in any game. Because its 50/50, I feel like I can't weigh the odds or mitigate my chances. If you want a simple roll for success, I'd recommend 2D6 with modifiers. The bell-curve provided with 2D6 is a great one for allowing players to weigh their chances.
For example, creatures could have attack/defense modifiers to the die roll, and you could even have cards that provide modifiers to a roll, allowing players to decide which attacks are most important, etc.

MarkD1733
MarkD1733's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/05/2014
did they "hate dice rolling" or rolling for how many cards

Quote:
I just wanted to point out that Gamers (Adult ones) don't really like the randomness of dice rolling.

I would caution against the opinion that adult gamers hate dice. I think that is an unfoundedly broad statement and I know plenty of gamers who love dice. If gamers hated dice rolling, King of Tokyo, Catan, Zombie Dice, even Yahtzee, Liars Dice, Monopoly, and all those roll-and-writes, etc. wouldn't be popular...but they are. Randomness with dice isn't the issue...it's whether that's all there is to winning. In your example, the dice rolling was related to getting cards. Was that necessary? Did that simplify or complicate gameplay? In many instances, especially push-your-luck, dice randomness is no different than drawing a card, etc. It's more about how it is used. Is it for input randomness? Output randomness? Do I have any control? Or do I need to be strategic that can mitigate my randomness? All these design considerations can make or break the success of dice mechanics.

That said, there are many games where dice rolling is done poorly, and players will hate such design choices. However, randomness can be an intriguing, suspenseful mechanic that can serve many games extremely well.

MarkD1733
MarkD1733's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/05/2014
Reinforcing NomadArtisan's comment

I just wanted to reinforce your post, NomadArtisan. I added my post before I read yours. We are on the same page. And I am not just agreeing just because I need to defend my choices for dice rolling in the two games I am designing

:-D

Mark

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Just to be clear ...

MarkD1733 wrote:
I would caution against the opinion that adult gamers hate dice. I think that is an unfoundedly broad statement and I know plenty of gamers who love dice.

Well I didn't POLL the World ... Just BGG. And whenever I talk about DICE people are like "Not Interested". When I talk about "Determinism" ... All of a sudden, people ARE interested. Like I wanted to COMPARE two (2) of my designs to see WHICH one gamers (Adult) would prefer.

And so when I pitched the POLL, I said one was about Game Tiles and Area Control, while the other one was Take-That and Dice Rolling. Immediately everyone told me to FOCUS on game #1 (Area Control). Everyone said they don't like "Dice Rolling" games... But as you state, there are people who DO like rolling dice... So for my Area Control game, I ADDED a Tactical Layer of Dice rolling... So Determinism combined with more FLEXIBLE dice rolling due to CUSTOM d6s.

Everyone seemed cool with this and told me they would prefer this game over the other one ... Even if they BOTH had Dice Rolling!

AdamRobinGames-ARG
Offline
Joined: 02/11/2015
If you wanted to keep the dice aspect

I think you could keep the Dice aspect and limit the randomness. For the creatures have Attack (dice modifier) / Defense (dice modifier). All the dice can be d6 with two faces -1, two 0 and two +1 (Which I think you can already purchase without doing custom). Have two colors of dice to distinguish attack from defense.

So say a 3(1)/3(1) attacks or is blocked by a 1(2)/2(2). The attacker would roll 1 of each dice and the defender would roll 2 of each dice to modify the base stats. If the defense is lower than or equal to the attack of the other then the creature, then it dies. Adds randomness, but not too much.

If a an attack stat goes negative, its a miss. If a defense stat goes negative, then its instant death on an attack of 0 or greater (basically the creature made itself prone).

For this I think I would start testing out an average base stat range in the 4 to 7 with the modifiers generally being 1 or 2.
You could then introduce lower base stats for swarm type tactics, or higher for stompy decks. It also limits the required amount of dice to the sum your highest attack and defense modifier.

I agree, with quest that regular dice or dice heavy would add too much randomness in a strategy game and therefore rule out a block of players. But just the aspect of dice rolling or SOME randomness in a strategy game won't necessarily deter mature gamers. I think you have to strike the right balance, and in strategy, that is generally to minimize randomness.

Tim Edwards
Tim Edwards's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/30/2015
Dice lover here! But I also

Dice lover here!

But I also appreciate the extra-layer of randomness issue when you use them with cards.

I have an idea though:

Most of what people object to regarding dice is the 'I make a decision - roll to see if it works' thing.
Sometimes more popular is the 'I roll to see what's possible - then I make the decision'.

For your game, could the players have pre-rolled dice under a cup, and reveal them for the combat? Then they would be strategising around the (random) dice, rather than being at the mercy of the dice at the moment of truth?

AdamRobinGames-ARG
Offline
Joined: 02/11/2015
@Tim Edwards

I agree that would reduce the randomness and would make for a bit more strategy, but having the knowledge would not be realistic in a realtime combat scenario. You don't know how well you are going to land the strike.

Tim Edwards
Tim Edwards's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/30/2015
True. But, don't forget you

True.

But, don't forget you still don't know how you will land the strike because you don't know what dice your opponent has.

AdamRobinGames-ARG
Offline
Joined: 02/11/2015
Touché

(pun intended)

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut