Tactical "Comand/Counter" Combat Deck

In my "Tactical" game that I working on, switching to Cards from a Dice System, I have a "Command" deck. This set of cards are *actions* that may be performed by the player.

To determine if a player is successful or not, each players has a "Counter" deck which is comprised of cards that are *counters* to the "Command" deck. So if I have "Jab" in my "Command" deck, I have "Counter Jab" in my "Counter" deck.

Now while combos are not directly "countered", they fundamentally depend on basic modes of attack. Like "Jab", "Punch", "Kick", "Round-House", etc. For each *basic* mode of attack, you add a "counter" card as well.

During a DUEL, what you do is give YOUR "Counter" Deck to your opponent and he gives you HIS. Now during combat, players have a percentage (based on the number of basic attacks) of predicting his opponent's command/attack.

The only problem is that this works ONLY for DUELS. I cannot simulate "brawls" where there could be multiple assailants against one specific player. Or co-operative play where it is two-on-two (for example).

It only works for one-on-one simulations (because of the deck exchange).

Aside from this, the mechanics used work real well. For each basic attack you add a counter and the basic "Command" deck has THREE (3) "Basic" Attacks. So the "Counter" deck has a minimum of three (3) cards to counter.

There are other ways of failure for attacking - but I don't want to examine the game's entire engine. For now, just the "Counter" Deck mechanic.

Maybe somebody has additional comments/feedback/ideas regarding it.

Cheers.

Note: Since you only know the "Counters", there is a learning curve to determine if the opponent has added "FAKE" or dummy "attack" cards to the "Counter" deck. As play unfolds, a player becomes more aware of the moves his opponent may use as "Commands".

So if I have three (3) basic attacks: "Punch", "Jab", "Kick" and I add the "Round-House", my opponent will believe that those are the moves/commands that I may use... But until I actually USE the "Round-House", he is uncertain if this is a *NEW* move/command or just fodder.

And of course a player can see all kinds of moves they may not have in their own deck and be unaware of the consequence of using those commands unless their opponent uses them. It adds a "hidden information" element that is, to me, very interesting...

Note #2: TL;DR The basic idea is that you can add all kinds of "Basic" attacks PLUS include the use of weapons. Since this would be an expandable game, you can have cards your opponent has never even seen before... This collectible aspect, say your opponent used "Numb Chucks" as a "Basic" weapon and he beat the crap out of you... You are going to be like "I need to get me some *Numb Chucks* to beat up my opponents!"

Something seen in Magic games where people get beaten by various decks and want to get a copy of that deck for themselves...

Update: The basic idea stems from the game "Street Fighter" or "Mortal Combat". It's FOCUS is "Combat" not like Magic or other CCGs/TCGs. You are locked into combat with your opponent and trying to predict your opponent's moves while trying to surprise him with your own...

Update 2x: Just to mention other ways of an Command/attack failing are "distance" (or relative positioning). So if someone uses a RANGED attack, like "Hadouken" you might be able to perform the move even when you are not proximate to your opponent.

But if you want to do a "Basic" melee move, this requires you to be in range of your opponent. There are three (3) basic positions: in your opponent's area, neutral ground or your area. Your opponent's position also varies with the three positions. Being in the SAME area, mean you are open to melee attacks.

This is another way "Commands"/attack may fail: you may NOT be in the same area as your opponent... And therefore you may opt to use a ranged attack but your opponent can of course counter it.