Skip to Content

Number of cards that a player can play

11 replies [Last post]
X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013

I wish for others to have some input.

For my card game, it is important that a player can play like 10 cheap cards or 1 expensive one. Or a mix of anything in between.

This is based on the total costs of the cards.
Simply said, a player may not exceed this total costs, when playing the cards.

It has a balance reason.
There are no other objects to help, no dice, no tokens. Nothing! Only cards.

The balance is connected to the fodder effect. But an impasse would be that if a player plays a card that has 9 defence. 4 soldier cards with each an attack of 1 aren't enough.

The player needs 9 of those. And I wish to allow the player to be able to do this.

Depending on how the decks are created by the players. I think that the maximum costs of what a player can play in one round has to be linked to the strongest of cards.

The highest defence divided by the smallest attack (1). Times the costs of each 1 attack card?

Or a fixed total costs to keep it simple? Although, perhaps still making it depend on the maximum defence in play?

Stormyknight1976
Offline
Joined: 04/08/2012
For my game

Dymino Monsters has a player Picard card that holds 9 cards on the top row and 9 cards on the bottom row.

The top row also has 1 spot for the discard pile.

The bottom row also has 1 spot for the draw pile.

Below the bottom row on the player placard card, there are 14 spots to hold upto 136 domino tiles.

The player Placard cards are only used in the PvP variant game in Dymino Monsters and also in the 4 player battlefield play mat.

For attack and defense points in my game Dymino Monsters:

Double Six domino set has 24 tiles:

Player stacks 4 high 7 across. 28 tiles.

Attack points :

For example:

I would add +2 Attk on 1st, 3rd and 4th domino tile. The attack points are the numbers above the dark line of any domino tile in attack mode.

Defense points:

For example:

I would add +4 def on 3rd and 4th domino tiles in defense mode.

Game play example:

X3M lays down a TOG Skeleguard card from Dymino Monsters game:

Tog Skeleguard Encounter : Add +9 Attk on First dymino tile only.

Jesse lays down a Sabercat Minion from Dymino Monsters game:

Sabercat Minion Encounter : Add +7 Attk on first dymino tile only in attack mode.

Add +5 defense on first Dymino tile.

Game play:

X3M flips over 1 dymino tile to start the battle phase.

X3M sees a 4 and then adds the +9 to the encounters attack. This gives the encounter a 13 attack.

Jesse sees his Sabercat Minion has a 5+ on the card.

Jesse flips over 1 Dymino tile to hopefully match or go over the attack from X3M.

Jesse flips over a tile.

Tile number closes to players chest / under the dark line on the dymino tile is the defense points.

Tile is a 1. Jesse adds the 5 from the cards defense. It is now a 6. Jesse flips over the remaining tiles to defend.

Defense mode:
2nd tile : 3
3rd tile : 1
4th tile : 3

Jesse's defense is 13.

Jesse defends the attack by trying to match or go over the attack.

X3M flips over another tile.

X3M's 2nd tile is blank. Total is still 13.

X3M flips 3rd tile and it's a 5.

X3M's attack is 18. Jesse loses his monster to the discard pile.

Players can only use upto 4 Dymino tiles during an attack and defense phase. There are however exemptions but that rule only determines when another card effect allows it.

If a player defends an attack with 4 tiles, the defending players stays on the field. The defending player can counter attack or strategize by moving another card on to the field to attack another xard, replacing a card on their player placard card (player hand) or ending their turn.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Stormyknight1976 wrote:Dymino

Stormyknight1976 wrote:
Dymino Monsters has a player Picard card that holds 9 cards on the top row and 9 cards on the bottom row.

The top row also has 1 spot for the discard pile.

The bottom row also has 1 spot for the draw pile.


So, 18 spots, of which 2 are reserved. 16 spots.

Stormyknight1976 wrote:

Below the bottom row on the player placard card, there are 14 spots to hold upto 136 domino tiles.
I only allow cards in this game. ;)

Stormyknight1976 wrote:
The player Placard cards are only used in the PvP variant game in Dymino Monsters and also in the 4 player battlefield play mat.
I should clarify. I can have 2 to X players.
Where each player has a deck pile. And 4 sections.
Attack frontline.
Attack support line.
Defence frontline.
Defence support line.

The maximum that I am seeking is for either the whole Attack or whole Defence. A player can't increase this maximum afterwards (unles special cards are used).

Stormyknight1976 wrote:

If a player defends an attack with 4 tiles, the defending players stays on the field. The defending player can counter attack or strategize by moving another card on to the field to attack another xard, replacing a card on their player placard card (player hand) or ending their turn.

Reïnforcements are possible once there is room.

I think I will design the cards in such a way. That the statistics that matter are clustered together. Thus the defence and attack power of each card. Including the attributes if any. In that way, you can have the cards being placed on top of each other for like 50%. Thus saving up room. Is that an idea?

Of course, same type cards can easily be stacked as well.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Something to consider

X3M wrote:
I wish for others to have some input.

...

The highest defense divided by the smallest attack (1). Times the costs of each 1 attack card?

Or a fixed total costs to keep it simple? Although, perhaps still making it depend on the maximum defense in play?

The problem with these "ideas" is that they ONLY create "reactionary" card play. Meaning you are putting rules into place that LIMIT how one player may play their cards. If you based this off the ATTACKER ... Then your defense strategy "as per your design/ideas" will limit how strong the defender's troops may be.

That is BAD.

I suggested a "hard limit" to the number of CARDS in play. Like maybe at most twelve (12) cards. This is not linked to the strengths or weaknesses of the cards, yet it does aim to ensure that a certain "roof" is preserved.

You don't want ANYTHING "reactionary" because it implies if the defender is STRONGER than his opponent, he may not be able to play all the cards that he may want to play this turn... Because of a weaker attack.

LASTLY since this is NOT a "Video Game", players don't want to be computing values to determine which cards they can or cannot play. It will be boring IF you play # of points and I can at most play at most # points.

It will already be HARD enough to figure out what cards to play and where... no counting some kind of complicated formula for computing HOW many cards (or their point values in total) may be played.

IDK... This is just me. But I say is try to keep it as simple as possible. And limit the amount of MATH involved (calculations not stats). You've got some really cool ideas (that you explained to me...) and you don't want to add a layer of computation on top of what you already have UNLESS it is very easy to compute...

Cheers.

Note #1: If a player can play 12 Tanks (9/9 each) so be it... That's his lucky turn and he should be allowed to do this. But if this exhausts all his tanks on THIS turn... He will be weaker in subsequent ones... That kind of balance is NATURAL and requires no rules...

Note #2: Now IF you don't want this to happen (12 Tanks) you can set simple rules like a maximum of "X" points on attack and "Y" points on defense. Simple math (addition only) reaching a maximum threshold (that too is easy to understand and compute).

Note #3: Another option is to LIMIT EACH UNIT to a maximum per turn. On the TOP-RIGHT corner is the VALUE of the limit. So maybe only 4 Tanks or 12 Riflemen. That too is very SIMPLE and serves as another way of limiting the amount of units as they get stronger to be in play!

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
questccg wrote: I suggested a

questccg wrote:

I suggested a "hard limit" to the number of CARDS in play. Like maybe at most twelve (12) cards. This is not linked to the strengths or weaknesses of the cards, yet it does aim to ensure that a certain "roof" is preserved.
this breaks the game.

questccg wrote:
You don't want ANYTHING "reactionary" because it implies if the defender is STRONGER than his opponent, he may not be able to play all the cards that he may want to play this turn... Because of a weaker attack.
since cards go to the attack first. The enemies know where they will be going next. And there are cards that will stay save when attacking the defense. In fact, if a good limit is placed based on costs. The attackers can do better than defenders.

questccg wrote:
LASTLY since this is NOT a "Video Game", players don't want to be computing values to determine which cards they can or cannot play. It will be boring IF you play # of points and I can at most play at most # points.
Both players have the same limits.

questccg wrote:
It will already be HARD enough to figure out what cards to play and where... no counting some kind of complicated formula for computing HOW many cards (or their point values in total) may be played.
what if the limit is a hard 40 costs?

questccg wrote:

Note #1: If a player can play 12 Tanks (9/9 each) so be it... That's his lucky turn and he should be allowed to do this. But if this exhausts all his tanks on THIS turn... He will be weaker in subsequent ones... That kind of balance is NATURAL and requires no rules...
there is no luck. Players have access to all cards.

questccg wrote:

Note #2: Now IF you don't want this to happen (12 Tanks) you can set simple rules like a maximum of "X" points on attack and "Y" points on defense. Simple math (addition only) reaching a maximum threshold (that too is easy to understand and compute).
Or a maximum on the costs. Which would yield the same.

questccg wrote:
Note #3: Another option is to LIMIT EACH UNIT to a maximum per turn. On the TOP-RIGHT corner is the VALUE of the limit. So maybe only 4 Tanks or 12 Riflemen. That too is very SIMPLE and serves as another way of limiting the amount of units as they get stronger to be in play!
Now, this might help. I do this for the other games as well. But it should ALWAYS be together with a maximum of costs that a player may place on the table. Or the entire deck would be there at once.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Total AP!

X3M wrote:
There is no luck. Players have access to all cards.

Hmm... Maybe you should worry about Analysis-Paralysis... You have no hands??? How are you going to SORT on the table ALL the cards so that your opponent doesn't know what you are playing...?

Moreover the First Player is at a HUGE disadvantage if he has to show HIS/HER cards first. The defender has a bonus when defending (and even possibly to counter-attack)!

IDK... I was thinking this was sounding like a GOOD design... But now I'm worried it will be for "special people" who have only high-levels of patience and understanding (of complex mathematics)...!

Now I think that what you say "Breaks the game" ... Maybe having Rounds that escalate the number of cards in play. Like 4 cards per player in Round #1, 9 cards per player in Round #2, 15 cards per player in Round #3, etc... So that there is an ESCALATION and a bit of CHAOS... But controlled in that the values are preset PER ROUND limiting AP at the start ... but making it harder.

And then AFTER Round #3 ... All the cards get RESET and you go back to Round #1 (4 Cards)...!

Maybe something like that might work...?! IDK.

Here is a LINK you should read:

https://makethemplay.com/index.php/2016/07/07/14-ways-of-reducing-analys...

It's a few years back ... But Point #2 and #5 are very relevant...

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Also a bit controversial...

Is your "DO or DIE" philosophy ... of requiring at least ONE (1) Unit to be defeated. Using a multiple-Round strategy impedes this sort of requirement.

What "breaks" your game is interesting to me.

You need to ADD some "limitations" to the number of total cards in a Deck. Letting players have have access to all the cards... Can be very problematic. Often, even with Micro Decks (under 20 cards), I have strategies that ensure that NOT ALL cards will be played. Or a RE-SHUFFLE card at some point which means the Deck is never "exhausted" but kept FRESH and "unpredictable".

Now I'm not saying have access to maybe 30 cards is NOT a bad idea.

Say we INTRODUCE a HAND of 8 cards (That's also a limit proven to be significant to many games). And we keep the three (3) Rounds. That means a total hand of 3 x 8 = 24 cards. Six (6) cards don't get played.

That means that there is some RANDOM factor and GARANTEE that the OPTIMAL strategy of the Deck doesn't come into play on all ROUNDS.

Again I'm not telling you to CHANGE your game. I'm just explaining what are some of your options and things to think about. I for one want your design to succeed ... But sometimes you get caught-up in your own "world" of computation, calculation and challenging rules, etc.

Having TOO MANY options is BAD ... And although YOU as the Designer of the game "understand" how you SHOULD play... You don't take the view of the average Gamer ... Who expects STRATEGY but simpler rules. So the DEPTH of your game has to come from HOW you PLAY it.

The "DO or DIE" philosophy may work... You may find something else to replace it which may be more "organic". Maybe a simple Point system. Each CARD has a point value. Each Rifleman is worth 1 Point, Each Tank is worth 9 Points, etc. First player to score 30 Points WINS! Very simple. And still STAT-based. You can have your own ATTACK strategy... Makes it balanced: More Power = More Points = More Risk.

Something for you to think about... Again, I'm not trying to break-up your game. I'm just trying to find PATHS that are as STRATEGIC and OPEN as possible, while providing some kind of LIMITATIONS in terms of pure CARDS.

Cheers!

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
About those 3 rounds

So IF each HAND is 8 cards, and Round #1 you can put only 4 Cards in play... You see how this LIMITS the cards and lowers the decision making process. And you discard 4 cards in Round #1.

Now if Round #2 you can put into play 9 cards (that means 4 + 5 = 9) leaving 3 cards to be discarded in Round #2.

Lastly if Round #3 you can put into play 15 cards (that means 9 + 6 = 15) leaving 2 cards to be discarded by the end of Round #3.

This shouldn't BREAK ANYTHING. It just doesn't ALLOW your "Optimal Player Strategy" which you are very fixated on... Meaning a player will ALWAYS START with the SAME identical setup each game. This is BORING. It's too predictable and is poor strategy. There is little in the way of REACTION to the SAME cards over and over.

In my 3-ROUNDS method of play, you discard 9 cards and never see 6 of them... That's a good way of ensuring no OPTIMAL strategy and sufficient randomness based on card draws ONLY. And it can still YIELD BIG MOMENTS in Round #3... For example.

Note #1: That means that 50% of the DECK never gets into play 15/30 = 50%. That's pretty decent... Optimal Strategy will be very hard ... And while you are still fixated on it. Just TRY some hands and see what kind of FUN you can have with the cards you DRAW!

Note #2: The "ESCALATION" version means that things INTENSIFY as you go further into the game. So TENSION grows severely especially between each subsequent round. TRY it out... Again don't worry about OPTIMAL play. I'm 100% sure you are fixated on this...

Note #3: You can PLAY-AROUND with the discarding of the cards in a round. For example ... You could PLAY a card onto the table that allows you to KEEP "1" card in your hand at the end of a ROUND. As long as this unit is NOT defeated, that "rule" applies.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Others should refer to the first post.

questccg wrote:
Hmm... Maybe you should worry about Analysis-Paralysis... You have no hands??? How are you going to SORT on the table ALL the cards so that your opponent doesn't know what you are playing...?
Choices can be obvious. See the 14 points part. The idea behind the deck is the hand is: the deck is sorted. Like how MtG players have 20 land cards and then select 40 other cards. Of which some are put in multiple times. The same idea goes for my game. But then you simply have them sorted to your own convenience. Something like the sidebars of some RTS games. Where the sidebar has always the same order of "cards" The player will scroll through them to find the cards they need. The fun part is, the players can customize this themselves.

questccg wrote:

Moreover the First Player is at a HUGE disadvantage if he has to show HIS/HER cards first. The defender has a bonus when defending (and even possibly to counter-attack)!
There is no first player. Everyone goes at the same time in the first round. It depends on the results of the cards. And the game kinda breaks into turn order this way. It still needs refinement for more than 3 players. Waiting for the solution in this topic before I aim for that one.

questccg wrote:
IDK... I was thinking this was sounding like a GOOD design...
thanks!
questccg wrote:
But now I'm worried it will be for "special people" who have only high-levels of patience and understanding (of complex mathematics)...!
Nooo!!
Once again.
Players are expected to be able to add up numbers and compare numbers.
All the other math in order to created RPS happens in the shadows.
Of course I could work on having single digits only. But then I will be scrapping a shit-ton of attributes.
Which is, believe it or not, something I consider.

questccg wrote:
Now I think that what you say "Breaks the game" ... Maybe having Rounds that escalate the number of cards in play. Like 4 cards per player in Round #1, 9 cards per player in Round #2, 15 cards per player in Round #3, etc... So that there is an ESCALATION and a bit of CHAOS... But controlled in that the values are preset PER ROUND limiting AP at the start ... but making it harder.

Players start with 1 defending card. Often one attacking card is enough to counter it. It is unwise to place an entire army right away. Since this entire army can be swept away. But seeing as how the strongest card might only be defeated by a massive fodder army. I deem this the issue and it should be possible for the players to do so.

questccg wrote:
And then AFTER Round #3 ... All the cards get RESET and you go back to Round #1 (4 Cards)...!
A player is only resetted if the defence and offence of that player was completely destroyed. Then this player is forced to play 1 card again into the defence.

questccg wrote:
Maybe something like that might work...?! IDK.

Here is a LINK you should read:

https://makethemplay.com/index.php/2016/07/07/14-ways-of-reducing-analys...

It's a few years back ... But Point #2 and #5 are very relevant...


Let me break this down.

1. Only a deck of cards.
2. Is indeed relevant, the balance is based on the costs distribution. Which is the topic here.
3. Somehow, I always make this point analog. But I have a reason.
4. NO. Not randomizing this time. I use it in the "public" wargame though.
5. Just adding and comparing, for the players. There is no need for all the other math that happens in the shadows.
6. And here we are. This is something that is always used in my analog games. If you can choose between 1 to 400. Yet the most obvious choice is close to, let's say 81. Then we pick 81... or 64 or 100, depending on what is avaiable to the plaeyr at that point. Obviously the card game that is aimed at normal people goes single digits to begin with. The enemy has 4, we have for example 2x3, 5 or 7. We most likely will pick the 2x3 or 5, depending on other factors.
7. The vanilla starts out with only comparing the damages. The first simple attributes cut the cumulative effects into chapters. I don't think I will ever go to the level of MtG.
8. Nothing here.
9. Attacking and defending are more or less forced. Players have no choice here.
10. Depends on the smallest deck size. The deck size depends on the players.
11. "Math chess" but only adding and comparing.
12. "Math stratego" you don't know yet to what you need to compare. The pieces are visible one by one.
13. Nothing here.
14. Never ever will I thouch timers again. Yuk!!

***

questccg wrote:
Is your "DO or DIE" philosophy ... of requiring at least ONE (1) Unit to be defeated. Using a multiple-Round strategy impedes this sort of requirement.
When trying to have your 1 unit to survive. That is the only multirounded goal. Having to defeat one, well, let's say you need to explore the fog of war and bring down the numbers. The sooner you get a grisp of what the enemy has, the better your plan can be. It is like stratego in this regard.

questccg wrote:

What "breaks" your game is interesting to me.

You need to ADD some "limitations" to the number of total cards in a Deck. Letting players have have access to all the cards... Can be very problematic. Often, even with Micro Decks (under 20 cards), I have strategies that ensure that NOT ALL cards will be played. Or a RE-SHUFFLE card at some point which means the Deck is never "exhausted" but kept FRESH and "unpredictable".

In a sence, you got access to any piece in the game A&A, that game has several different pieces. The pieces however are all used in my game. But the space is the limitation. Perhaps you can consider a tank with a cost of 8, having a size of 8. So, 1 tank or 4 infantry that each cost 2 and together have a size of 8.

questccg wrote:

Now I'm not saying have access to maybe 30 cards is NOT a bad idea.

Say we INTRODUCE a HAND of 8 cards (That's also a limit proven to be significant to many games). And we keep the three (3) Rounds. That means a total hand of 3 x 8 = 24 cards. Six (6) cards don't get played.

That means that there is some RANDOM factor and GARANTEE that the OPTIMAL strategy of the Deck doesn't come into play on all ROUNDS.

Again I'm not telling you to CHANGE your game. I'm just explaining what are some of your options and things to think about. I for one want your design to succeed ... But sometimes you get caught-up in your own "world" of computation, calculation and challenging rules, etc.

Which should not be done by the players, I know. But i thought I told you which calculations the players should do at most.
Adding up the costs of the cards and not exceed a certain number per round. Whether this is 10, 20, 30 or idk, we played the game with 60 and had fun. Read again, costs of the cards, not the number of the cards.

The deck itself has the same limitation, but like 3 to 6 times higher. Depending on how fast you want the game to be.

The attack and the defence points are to be compared.

So, adding up and comparing are the only 2 math the players need to do. Obviously, having 10 cards of 2 costs each will imply that players could multiply.

Example:
"How big is the deck in costs and cards?"
10x2 + 6x3 + 6x4 + 3x6 + 2x10 = 100 costs.
Number of cards is 27.

Players don't see how the RPS through the numbers is build. They simply get a feeling for it when playing.

questccg wrote:

Having TOO MANY options is BAD ... And although YOU as the Designer of the game "understand" how you SHOULD play... You don't take the view of the average Gamer ... Who expects STRATEGY but simpler rules. So the DEPTH of your game has to come from HOW you PLAY it.

1. Keep being able to defeat the enemy cards.
2. Compare attack to defence, to know if you can defeat the enemy card(s).
3a. Cards in the deck are limited by costs.
3b. Cards on the table are limited by costs.
4. Cards that get into play will follow a route on the table for their purpose.

questccg wrote:
The "DO or DIE" philosophy may work... You may find something else to replace it which may be more "organic". Maybe a simple Point system. Each CARD has a point value. Each Rifleman is worth 1 Point, Each Tank is worth 9 Points, etc. First player to score 30 Points WINS! Very simple. And still STAT-based. You can have your own ATTACK strategy... Makes it balanced: More Power = More Points = More Risk.
This is an option. I will consider it. But the game might change fundamentially.

questccg wrote:

Something for you to think about... Again, I'm not trying to break-up your game. I'm just trying to find PATHS that are as STRATEGIC and OPEN as possible, while providing some kind of LIMITATIONS in terms of pure CARDS.
Cheers!

A lot so far. Still have to read the third post at this point. But I got another idea which is used in one of my other games. What if I simply allow a number of cards of a certain type. A type deck if you will. Which contains only the same card. And the real deck consists of a multiple type decks. The player needs cards equal to that type deck, in order to add it to the game. The total deck is limited in choices. And the deck is more balanced so the player doesn't have to ponder about this.

***

questccg wrote:
So IF each HAND is 8 cards, and Round #1 you can put only 4 Cards in play... You see how this LIMITS the cards and lowers the decision making process. And you discard 4 cards in Round #1.
There was a time when I considered playing cards for the costs of other cards. But the fodder cards broke this aspect pretty damn fast.

questccg wrote:

This shouldn't BREAK ANYTHING. It just doesn't ALLOW your "Optimal Player Strategy" which you are very fixated on... Meaning a player will ALWAYS START with the SAME identical setup each game.
The first round will be a choice of which card to play. There are 3 categories. 1) Giving away this round by playing the worst card. 2) Taking this round for almost 100% certainty. The card will still die, but the first round is yours. 3) Playing a middle man to either mirror 1 or 2. CATEGORY 4) Playing a middle middle man. Catego.... nvm, i think you get the idea now.
questccg wrote:
This is BORING.
oof
questccg wrote:
It's too predictable and is poor strategy.
Only certain players.
questccg wrote:
There is little in the way of REACTION to the SAME cards over and over.
Reactions can differ every time as well. Will the player use?
- Fodder
- Optimal support card (with protection)
- Optimal normal card
- Optimal strong card
- Overkill support card (with protection)
- Overkill strong card

I ditched the Overkill normal card, since this is not smart in strategy. Unless you know the options are limited at this point. And the normal cards have turned into strong cards...or support cards.

I also might add, the support and strong are based on the defence points they have. A support type needs often protection due to low defence. But is cheaper. Fodder can be split up and be point man in combination with a support card.

Optimal here means: The attack equals the defence.

questccg wrote:
In my 3-ROUNDS method of play, you discard 9 cards and never see 6 of them... That's a good way of ensuring no OPTIMAL strategy and sufficient randomness based on card draws ONLY. And it can still YIELD BIG MOMENTS in Round #3... For example.

Note #1: That means that 50% of the DECK never gets into play 15/30 = 50%. That's pretty decent... Optimal Strategy will be very hard ... And while you are still fixated on it. Just TRY some hands and see what kind of FUN you can have with the cards you DRAW!

You know, at this point. I might as well get rid of the entire game. The whole RPS system is based on access to all cards. If players draw cards each round. The game should be completely different. I tried this before, but it never worked. And thus I ditched the idea until I came up with the deck = hand type of game.

questccg wrote:

Note #2: The "ESCALATION" version means that things INTENSIFY as you go further into the game. So TENSION grows severely especially between each subsequent round. TRY it out... Again don't worry about OPTIMAL play. I'm 100% sure you are fixated on this...
Players have a choice of whether they kill the one card. Or all cards. Perhaps a single soldier card can do the required job.
questccg wrote:

Note #3: You can PLAY-AROUND with the discarding of the cards in a round. For example ... You could PLAY a card onto the table that allows you to KEEP "1" card in your hand at the end of a ROUND. As long as this unit is NOT defeated, that "rule" applies.

With the other mechanics in mind...Cards live only 1 round when defending.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Keeping it SIMPLE.

How many cards will you have at your disposal? 30, 50, 75, 100...

Answer this question first. You said 60 points ... Give us a real example of this with some real values...! Because you say: "3 to 6 times higher..."

I don't want to make any more assumption until we clarify exactly what a DECK looks like and from there how it plays. One step at a time.

After reading your response... I've shared what I took from it: "3 to 6 times higher." Which means the Deck's Capacity goes from anywhere in between 180 points to (maybe) 360 points. And a TURN seems to be 60 points ATM...

X3M wrote:
Example: "How big is the deck in costs and cards?"

10x2 + 6x3 + 6x4 + 3x6 + 2x10 = 100 costs.
Number of cards is 27.

Note #1: ATM that seems to be the limitations ... so far! Which BTW don't seem unreasonable ... Until we get into Card Counts that are maybe over 60 cards... But then again Commander is 100 cards so that's not a negative to the card count per se.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
We only once played a 60 point game to test it out

Best value's so far with single digit costs.

1 round can be up to 20 costs:
Infantry squad is like 6 to 9 cards.
Vehicles would go around 4 to 6 cards.
Tanks around 2 to 3 cards.

This times 3 to have all 9 vanilla types.

1 deck can be up to 180 costs.
1 deck average had like 45 cards.
2 player game was tested.
(We also once played with the double ammount, thus 90 cards.)

***

But lets consider the 45 cards which ammount to 180.

We thought it would go like this at first:

Players start with 1 defence card.
44 remain
Then they use at least one card to defeat the defence card.
43 remain
Then they use at least one card to defeat the new defence card.
42 remain
Then a sudden 9 cards or something...

But it is more like 45, 44, 43, 41, 39, 35, 32, 28, 24, 19, 14, 8, The End
About 13 rounds on average if a snowball effect occurs. With the last round around 6 cards being put into play. But only because we discovered that trying to take out all cards is more effective than simply sacrificing only 1 card.

Still, we don't want to play the entire deck at once. And as soon as someone has a good defence. Multiple attacks should be issued due to a maximum.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
After some evaluation

WITHOUT A PLAYTEST!!!

Each lane (there are 4) can get 4 types of cards. A player can place a stack of the same type. So 8 types in the attack squad and 8 in the defence squad.

Only 4 in the front line and 4 in the support line.

The rules are in accordance to the game level. Perhaps I could change the number of types as well. Might as well include this then.
If the front lane of the defence squad is filled and they can't go to the support lane. The attack squad remains as they are.

Novice:
Maximum card cost is 4
Maximum card type is 3
Maximum types per lane is 1
Maximum squad cost is 10
Maximum deck cost is 60

Average:
Maximum card cost is 6
Maximum card type is 6
Maximum types per lane is 2
Maximum squad cost is 15
Maximum deck cost is 120

Experienced:
Maximum card cost is 8
Maximum card type is 9
Maximum types per lane is 3
Maximum squad cost is 20
Maximum deck cost is 200

The novice will reach impasse very soon, since they can't move much as soon as they play a card that can't move. Maybe I need to introduce certain attributes at a later level?

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut