Skip to Content

Deck building archetypes

3 replies [Last post]
jedite1000's picture
Joined: 02/18/2017

How do you do a good deck building game with archetypes that play different from other archeypes such as my idea i have been brewing

there are 3 different colors, each color plays differently but combat is basically the same for all colors

So i have 3 decks, a blue, red, and yellow

Blue is like magical creatures and you have a set number of mana to be able to play the blue cards, for example

all blue cards come with 3 mana, so if i want to play my mage, he costs 2 mana, so before I play my mage, i will place another blue color character card in a resource zone upside, and to play the mage, ill take 2 mana points from my blue card that is in the resource zone, so i can now play my mage into the battle zone. My mage is ready for battle and i have 1 mana point left on my blue card, on my next turn there is, lets say a wisp creature and it costs 1 mana to play, so during my turn, ill use the last remaining point on my card that is in the resource zone and play my wisp, now that my blue card has no more mana, i must discard that card. That is kind of what i have for my blue deck

My red deck has a resource cost called rage, some cards will have 0 rage cost so can be played for free but cards that cost rage, my cards in combat must die, if a card dies then i get 1 rage point,i can then use my rage point to play a creature card that costs 1 rage point. The rage points are refreshed every turn so i wont have to build up my rage from 0 every turn.

For the yellow deck, it will be a more defensive deck, so when i play a yellow creature, he will have a score of 2. the only way i can play more yellow cards are if i have the required amount of score currently in play, so i have 2 soldier cards, 1 has a score of 1 and the other a score of 2. I have a soldier card in my had that requires 3 points to play, i have the points required to play my new soldier card

Actually i think instead of having cards cost 0 resource, each deck has a passive bonus for example. My blue deck will always have 1 mana every turn, it doesnt stack so you cant save up your free mana each turn, if you use it this turn or not it doesnt matter.

The red will be the same as blue and will have 1 free rage point

With the yellow, you can have a soldier with a cost of 1 already in play before you start your game

So the lowest resource cost of a card is a 1, so basically you can still play those cards for free

In the future ill add a black and white color but for now i want to see how this plays out

I guess each deck could have strength and weakness, such as red cards have higher attack but low hp, yellow cards have high hp but low attack. I am not sure what blue should have

But with all deck building games that play differently with each other runs into the problem of how to defeat your opponent. Like what are the victory conditions, should each deck have a different win condition or should they have the same win condition such as scoring points for how many cards you destroy but winning by points is kind of boring, its the same of attacking your opponent directly such as mtg, its a bit boring winning that way too

questccg's picture
Joined: 04/16/2011
Playstyles vs. Asymmetric Powers

One thing to be a bit "careful" about is again some "terminology". When you are talking about having your combat system identical between players, this is more consistent with Asymmetric Powers where there is a "Special Ability" that alters how some "exclusive" bonus occurs. Each Faction should have their own Ability (or Abilities - TradeWorlds has 2 per player) and it should be a minor change from the original rules to the game (in terms of a behavior or bonus).

Playstyles is something completely different. This is where you want the game to be radically different from one Player to another. I personally don't have much experience with Playstyles ... But this can be found in Magic: the Gathering when we talk about player personalities (Timmy, Johnny and Spike). Each of these personalities is allowed to experience the game DIFFERENTLY based on the cards (and Deck) they choose to play.

There is also something in between "Playstyles and Asymmetric Power", let's call it "behaviors" (for an example it could be related to COMBAT-only). And in this situation, you may want SOME aspect of the game to be different for each player. Why Combat? Well you seem to be saying some of your players can experience combat DIFFERENTLY. As such this could be a "special" behavior.

If this is TRUE, well then I would design "x" behaviors around different aspects of your game (where "x" = maximum number of players). Say it's four (4) ... Well then I would examine four aspects of the game and make them DIFFERENT for each player. So Combat between #1, #2, and #3 is identical ... but Player #4 has a different behavior when it comes to combat. But for Gold Generation, Player #1 is different and #2, #3, #4 are the same...

I think you should understand what I mean. This "behavior" difference is in-between Playstyles and Asymmetric Power. It's a bit more COMPLEX than an Asymmetric Power but simpler than a Playstyle.

questccg's picture
Joined: 04/16/2011
And why is this important???

The reason you should follow one of these 3 options is simple: EASIER TO BALANCE.

If you make one player too different from the others, this will lead to complications when you want to "balance" the game (player by player). The simplest is Asymmetric Powers... But even one ability that can alter some aspect of the game is tough to "balance"... To much so and that's a known Faction for being BETTER than the others.

Like I said earlier, I have little experience with Playstyles. So I won't even try to figure out HOW to "balance" different styles of play. This is so very unique to each game... If you choose this style of "difference" ... Well it's going to be a hard road to travel IMHO.

TBH from what I have read "behaviors" are your best bet. Make one (1) aspect different PER PLAYER given different elements in the game. I think this is simpler to "balance" also... Maybe even simpler once you have figured what aspects need to be different. So all your work is done UP-FRONT (so-to-speak)!

Joined: 02/11/2015
If your talking deck architypes

Here are some deck strategies I utilize in MtG:

Aggro - Optimize the deck to kill the other player(s) as quickly as possible. Typically only good in 1v1, as you want to play everything upfront and then have nothing to react with for the rest of the game.

Swarm - Looks to balance aggro with a little late game advantages thrown in. A lot of little creatures earlier for death by a thousand cuts, then late game either overwhelming numbers of them or buffs to the existing swarm.

Stompy - Optimize resources to get the biggest and baddest creatures out as fast as possible.

Turtle - Maximize defense and/or prevent players from attacking you until you get to your win condition (typically not damage to the other players)

Control - There are several subcategories of this, here are a few:
1. Resource Control - Tie up opponents resources limiting what and how much they can play.
2. Hand Control - Strip you opponents of cards in their hand.
3. Creature Control - Lots of kill and/or stealing of opponents creatures.
4. Counter Control - A mix of cards that allow you to react to opponents plays effectively.

Balanced - Mostly mid-range creatures with a little stompy and a little swarm tossed in to impeade. A splash of counter and/or creature control. Some buff.

Burn - Focus on direct damage to creatures and or players.

Punitive - Redirect whatever an opponent throws at you back at them.

Tribal or Synergy - Creatures that work well together (Tribal) giving each other buffs or bonuses. Or card combos and effects that optimize other cards. Either of these two can be paired with any of the above list.

There are some overlap for a lot of these, and there are several variations you can focus on for each. I have some Magic decks that fall under the same category, but play drastically different. And by no means is this an exhaustive list.

Syndicate content

forum | by Dr. Radut