# To Block or Not to Block(!?)

21 replies [Last post]
questccg
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011

I have Tactics which discuss the use of a "Blocking" Mechanic. I'm not quite sure what to do with them... Because there is no PLAYER to directly attack...

I'm thinking about have "Blocking" as some kind of DECISIONAL POWER.

Meaning that you can "Attack" or you can "Block". How would this work!? I'm not quite sure... That's why I am asking for some help.

To Attack, you must have Power greater or equal to the opponent Toughness. So "X/Z" must be greater or equal to "Z/Y".

But I'm thinking surely there COULD be a "Blocking" Mechanic that could be used instead of JUST "Attacking"...

Thoughts/Comments/Feedback/Ideas anyone??? Much appreciate!

questccg
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Confusion I think...

I know I could do the OPPOSITE: A "Blocker" is defined as any Unit in play that has more Toughness than his opponent's Power. "Z/X" must be greater than "Y/Z"... So this would mean that EITHER a card is an Attacker or it is a Blocker.

Is there more LOGIC that I need to look at???

IDK ... I think this is too simple and I'm missing SOMETHING...

Note #1: When a unit is "exhausted" ... The question to ask is: "Does this mean that the card CANNOT be an Attacker OR a Blocker?"

It is just "exhausted"... Does this sound reasonable?

Note #2: It makes perfect sense that if you have THREE (3) cards in play, those cards offer up "Fusion Points" to allow for Tactics to be used instead of Attacking and/or Blocking.

It's a bit the OPPOSITE of Magic. In Magic you need Land cards to play to gain Mana.

In ARCH you earn Fusion points based on the card you put into play. Fusion points (by definition) are combined together in order to use Tactics to affect the cards in play.

questccg
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Uncertainty ... certainly! (Knuck-Knuck)

Today I took a good 2 hours to refine the "Fusion" Trackers. The reason I did this was because the FIRST Prototype was a bit "off". Not too much ... But enough that it merited a second try. And so I worked on this to ensure that the margins were enough and that there would be sufficient spacing between all the elements. Took some real PAIN in the butt editing work not to mention tweaking the SVG files "manually".

What I am uncertain about is the "turn-order" and how it will play-out with the different methods of "attacking and/or blocking an opponent". If figure either a card can ATTACK or it can BLOCK. If I can do neither... Well then it is safe to assume that it will be "ATTACKED" by the opponent.

Fusion Points seems like a good idea... Because you just earn point from your cards in play. Perhaps the key is three-phases: the hidden token selection (ordering), the reveal of all cards, the sequencing according to the tokens (when it comes to playing the turns).

This would make "hidden" information now "perfect" (because you reveal all cards simultaneously) but the order the cards get PLAYED in the third phase is the key to mastering the area of play to see what works best given the cards in-play.

More thinking to do about this design. I also ordered the Small Stout Box from The Game Crafter (TGC) ... But I have to wait until May 3, 2021 before the package is produced and shipped. A bit more than 1 week ... Which is not too bad actually. It will allow me to focus on OTHER aspects of the game before I get the NEW Box and Fusion Trackers!

I will definitely RE-VISIT the "Blocking" aspect of the game ... Because it can dramatically alter the play of the game (in that you could have multiple Blockers in-play which can affect the stats in different ways).

questccg
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Here's what a preview of the Fusion Tracker v2 looks like

I'm pretty please with the result... Hopefully the measurement should be as tight as I have had them while comparing with the physical components (Sliders). Here's a sample:

This is a pretty neat Tracker. I'm very pleased that I thought of it... I figured if there are ONLY 4 sides to a card to TRACK ... Why not make my own room reserved for the Sliders and allow me to track more information in a very "even" way!

treeves3
Offline
Joined: 04/18/2018
Blocking

Hi Q,

In my game, I consider two types of defense - active and passive. Armor is passive, as it works to absorb most damage types no matter what actions you take. However, blocking (as well as evasion, parrying, etc.) is an active defense - a choice the combatant makes to raise their guard and prepare for incoming attacks. Yes, it requires using a "turn" to set this up, and I imagine it as taking a defensive (versus an aggressive) stance. Thus, when you choose an active defense, it persists and is added to any passive armor defense when attacked.

Hope this gives you some food for thought when you consider blocking and other active defense mechanisms!

-Tom

questccg
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Never thought about it that way

treeves3 wrote:
In my game, I consider two types of defense - active and passive.

I don't have the concept of armor, but each unit has "Toughness" which is nothing more than Defense Capabilities.

treeves3 wrote:
Armor is passive, as it works to absorb most damage types no matter what actions you take. However, blocking (as well as evasion, parrying, etc.) is an active defense - a choice the combatant makes to raise their guard and prepare for incoming attacks.

My concern was primarily WHO (like which types of cards) would WANT to use this pattern. Yes it is defensive... But if you are already "Tougher" than your opponent, they can't deal any damage to you.

treeves3 wrote:
Thus, when you choose an active defense, it persists and is added to any passive armor defense when attacked.

This is very interesting! But a bit "dangerous". Like if EVERYONE can "Block" and earn +5 Toughness... Everyone will do this and there will be very little attacking (or the ability to ATTACK). So maybe it needs to be more "subtle": Toughness +2.

Something like that?! Maybe... Where blocking pays off is if you have a 5 VP card facing a 3 VP card. The 3 VP card can ATTACK the 5 VP card and exile that card... Of course you would NOT want this... You would want to keep your HIGH scoring card... So you would "Block" and earn a couple more "Toughness" points to avoid being defeated!

That to me sounds VERY strategic... For now, I'll keep this as "Food for thought" ... But it seems very interesting TBH.

FrankM
Offline
Joined: 01/27/2017
Turn Order

So the top of the slider fits into those cut-out tracks? That's a really neat idea!

It sounds like you're stuck on deciding which order in which to play cards. If there's any concept of movement or reach or "high ground," that can be used to determine which card has "initiative." Maybe fusion points can be spent to improve someone's "initiative."

The card with "initiative" has the option of attacking first, but can hold off and force the next in order to declare their action first. Once that action gets declared, the one with "initiative" again has the option of declaring or holding, and so on.

This can get really complicated if there aren't any "game-y" restrictions on it: everyone on both sides holds and a whole stack of options need to resolve so the turn can end.

One possibility is that only one card per side can be holding. To have your second-fastest card hold, the first-fastest needs to act.

A bothersome edge-case is breaking ties.

Once a card is attacked, is it forced to block/riposte, or could it decide to attack some other opponent?

terzamossa
Offline
Joined: 09/24/2020
Hello, The game is not at all

Hello,
The game is not at all clear to me, but my 2 cents would be:

1)If block really must be added, why not just merge it with the existing mechanics: blocking means that the attacker needs to discard one of the cards they were about to play. No additional stats/toughness et. Different blocks could act in a different way, some would let the attacker choose which card doesn't activate, others would let the blocker decide and so on (I am sure more variants are possible)
2) I am unclear on the development stage of the game. If you are already prototyping I guess the game is advanced enough that if you made without a blocking mechanic until now, it really does not need one at this stage! So on "to block or not to block?" I would opt for Not to block and keep the game faithful to its premises (unless they are totally broken and you need something to fix them...but then instead of adding additional elements fixing the existing ones might be wiser? not sure!)

Not sure if this helps on the actual mechanics, I guess my overall point is to take some distance from the "blocking" and looking at how it would fit on what is already there!

questccg
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Yeah I think it's very COOL too! (Fusion Tracker)

FrankM wrote:
So the top of the slider fits into those cut-out tracks? That's a really neat idea!

Indeed "The Game Crafter" (TGC) has asked me to make the cut file available for "purchase" from their website. I've decided on the price point of \$1.99 USD for a bunch of assets for the Professional Resource Tracker. I'm even including my OWN Photoshop File (.PSD) for people (other Designers) to be able to work off of the layers and customize their very own version. Of course if you want to customize the SVG Cut File... Well you do this "at your own risk" ... working with the cut files is very tricky!

FrankM wrote:
It sounds like you're stuck on deciding which order in which to play cards.

Not really... The order is determined by the players. Players take turns selecting the order given six (6) Order Tokens and one (1) First Player Token.

FrankM wrote:
Once a card is attacked, is it forced to block/riposte, or could it decide to attack some other opponent?

Right now... I'm unsure. I think the basic idea is that you can "exhaust" your cards by doing AN ACTION. These actions include both Attacking AND Blocking. Using an Ability or Tactic doesn't require an action but uses Fusion Points instead.

Maybe you can COMBINE Attacks meaning you can use Adjacent cards to attack ONE (1) Lane (of the two available to attack). This could also be a possibility. Not sure ATM.

I need to wait for the NEW "Fusion Trackers" to arrive from TGC. Hopefully that "venture" is done with and the sliders are aligned perfectly with the latest cut marks!

questccg
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Prototype is 50% done

terzamossa wrote:
The game is not at all clear to me...

The prototype is 50% done. I'm waiting for the NEW "Fusion Tracker" (seen above) to arrive from "The Game Crafter" (TGC). I am still Designing the game with the "mechanics" that appeal to me and the game.

terzamossa wrote:
1)If block really must be added, why not just merge it with the existing mechanics: blocking means that the attacker needs to discard one of the cards they were about to play. No additional stats/toughness etc.

While this could work for games with large amounts of cards ... This would not work with ARCH. Why? Because each player ONLY has fifteen (15) cards to play with. The game is played in rounds with a selective turn-order. Players themselves decide HOW the round is to proceed.

So I can't just discard "cards" ... A Deck has 15 cards, a Hand has 5 cards and cards in play per-round is 3. A very tight design.

terzamossa wrote:
2) I am unclear on the development stage of the game. If you are already prototyping I guess the game is advanced enough that if you made without a blocking mechanic until now, it really does not need one at this stage!

I am still designing as I work to complete the prototype. Why Blocking? Well it adds another "action" to the game. The more "actions", the more there are going to be "abilities/tactics" which can affect the "actions".

questccg wrote:
For example: "Fear" = This Unit cannot be directly blocked in combat.

This is an ability which I had sketched-out to one of the many abilities and/or tactics in the game. This adds an additional LAYER to the game and opens up "more options".

Still need to playtest what I have and see how it goes... But with only 50% of the prototype ready... I need to WAIT for the NEW Fusion Trackers!

questccg
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Coming Soon! At The Game Crafter...

questccg wrote:
FrankM wrote:
So the top of the slider fits into those cut-out tracks? That's a really neat idea!

Indeed "The Game Crafter" (TGC) has asked me to make the cut file available for "purchase" from their website. I've decided on the price point of \$1.99 USD for a bunch of assets for the Professional Resource Tracker. I'm even including my OWN Photoshop File (.PSD) for people (other Designers) to be able to work off of the layers and customize their very own version. Of course if you want to customize the SVG Cut File... Well you do this "at your own risk" ... working with the cut files is very tricky!

And why would you spend \$1.99 USD when you can "Do It Yourself"??? Well it a bit of hit-and-miss with the offsets of the SVG Cut File. They are a pain to work with and the aligning doesn't always work out.

Take this Tracker... I'm on Version 5.0 of it. But in terms of physical copies I'm on version 2. 2 x \$2.00 USD = \$4.00 USD + Shipping twice. So I'm saving people who want to use this Tracker quite a bit of money.

Firstly it's a Digital Download, so no shipping fee and then you get the Photoshop (PSD File) with the Template and sample Top and Back. People will save in the long run because DIY result in several purchases and a TON of wait time (for shipping to happen). You'll only need to order ONCE and that means lower wait time and less of an expense.

questccg
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
I'm not 100% sure about the ACTIONS

That's a real challenge for me. While the cards have spots to write on using Dry-Ink Erase Markers ... You ONLY get three (3) cards per round.

And even if this is PER PLAYER... It's still VERY "tight".

I've now got 15 cards in each Player's Micro Deck ... And they each have an RPS-3 combination. I had completely FORGOTTEN about that "aspect" of the game. How does it play into the game, ATM IDK.

Right about now, the ONLY certainty is that cards have "Fusion Points" (FPs) and they are used by the "Abilities and/or Tactics" on the cards themselves.

Oh yeah, and also that there are six (6) Order Tokens to control the flow of a round. I also thought that was very "novel" too. Looking for Novel Design Ideas to go along with some of these "wanted" mechanics.

Everything else ... Is a bit uncertain!

questccg
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Lot's of work ahead for this design

terzamossa wrote:
The game is not at all clear to me...

@Antonio ... Yeah well I'm a bit "struggling" with the design myself TBH.

The original idea was to have Victory Points per card from 1 to 5. But this added an even distribution as follows:

5x 1 VP, 4x 2 VP, 3x 3 VP, 2x 4 VP and 1x 5 VP. So in total 35 VPs per Micro Deck.

Your Deck has 15 cards, your Hand is 5 cards and you PLAY 3 cards.

The "basic" idea was that you PLAY those 3 cards and add up the VPs to get a Total Victory Points (VPs) for that Round. The player with the HIGHER amount of VPs wins the Round. You need to win five (5) Rounds to win the game.

All that makes sense... And still holds TRUE.

***

What I am "struggling" with is "integrating" a combat/battle mechanic which allows for "fluctuating" VPs. Like just because you PLAY a 5 VP card... Doesn't mean that it STAYS at 5 VPs... Somehow you could LOSE or even GAIN VPs to worsen or solidify your total.

***

Blocking seemed like another ACTION in the combat/battle mechanic and seemed to play well with the "Abilities and/or Tactics".

***

So I need some of the fog to part and get a cleared picture on HOW battles/combat affect the VPs and if they do... How does this link into a RPS-3 Mechanic that was (and should be) at the core of the game. (BTW RPS-3 = Rock/Paper/Scissor)

Anyone with some thoughts/feedback/comments/ideas please feel free to share... I really have gotten lost with this DESIGN even though I am progressing with the PHYSICAL components and how it should "look like"...

questccg
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
More thought on combat/battles...

What I am thinking NOW ... Instead of having "TWO" (2) Values you ONLY get ONE (1) Value.

Either ATTACK OR DEFEND. So SOME cards are "Blockers" others are "Attackers". This is starting to sound "reasonable". And it will LOWER the amount of "stats" on the card (by one).

Generally speaking this sets-up some interesting "outcomes:

1> Blocker vs. Blocker ... Nothing happens (no change to either VPs)

2> Blocker vs. Attacker ... The higher of the two (2) values wins. So IF you have "3 ATTACK" and I have "4 DEFEND", I defend and nothing happens. But if it the opposite "4 ATTACK" vs. "3 DEFEND", I would lose 1 VP.

3> Attacker vs. Attacker ... This is where the RPS-3 kicks in. The winner of the RPS-3 deals an amount of VPs... How much, IDK!?

Still some things to THINK about... I don't want too high and very swingy types of amounts to deduct. Remember some cards only have 1 VP. They are very weak units... But you get FIVE (5) of them.

Again please feel free to share with me your thoughts and suggestions! Cheers.

Note #1: Some additional ideas ... Like "Broken Deck" such as ONLY "Blockers"... This gives no advantage to the player. Why? Because he cannot score any additional points.

How about the OPPOSITE? "Attackers" only. Need to have a way to mitigate against this Deck Construction strategy...

Note #2: Maybe I am taking the WRONG "approach"!!!

Instead of ATTACK and BLOCK... Could be POWER and DAMAGE.

POWER means that the amount of VPs will get AUGMENTED by that amount. So IF I have 2 POWER, it means my VPs get +2 POWER (in POWER vs. POWER). If it's 2 DAMAGE, it means the OPPONENT loses -2 VPs (in DAMAGE vs. DAMAGE). And in the last case, POWER vs. DAMAGE, it means POWER - DAMAGE = VPs gained. And the RPS-3 decides who is on the side of making an IMPACT!

Very interesting... I'm going to call it a night. But will take some additional NOTE and do some more tinkering off-line.

terzamossa
Offline
Joined: 09/24/2020
Have you thought of making a

Have you thought of making a digital prototype?
From what you write you have some interesting ideas but the overall flow/balance and even core rules of the game are still very hazy.
Printing a prototype is costly (a bit at least) and entails long waiting times until the components are printed and shipped.
I couldn't think of having an idea and waiting 20 days to try it out.
We are printing some prototypes of Kabula at TGC in a week or so, but this is the first physical prototypes we get since summer and in the meanwhile was changed countless times...I am doing daily play sessions right now with random groups and ending up tweaking wording or stats in cards until now. If I had to wait 20 days for a physical prototype everytime I change something it would have taken me 10 years to get to the same stage! We are printing only as we see the game as reviewable basically.

Just a thought, you could also find playtesters easily through fb groups, bgg and reddit if it was digital.

questccg
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
"No" to Steam

terzamossa wrote:
Have you thought of making a digital prototype?

I hate "Steam"... I slows down my computer too much... And therefore I won't buy/install TableTop Simulator. If one day a "stand-alone" version is made for TTS ... Well then I might buy into it and install it.

terzamossa wrote:
From what you write you have some interesting ideas but the overall flow/balance and even core rules of the game are still very hazy.

Actually I spent some time before bed last night, just thinking about HOW I could resolve my "open issues" and I came to an interesting conclusion:

A> There will be only ONE (1) stat on each card: Power or Damage.

B> Power is used to boost your VPs.

C> Damage is used to lower your opponent's VPs.

D> Everything is driven by the RPS-3 rules.

terzamossa wrote:
Printing a prototype is costly (a bit at least) and entails long waiting times until the components are printed and shipped. I couldn't think of having an idea and waiting 20 days to try it out.

I don't have to wait 20 days. My game use Print-aNd-Play cards... You actually print and cut the cards you want to put into your fifteen (15) Micro Deck. Right now, I have not designed ANY cards ATM. I'm just doing some "open designing" with the concept.

Yes, I realize Playtesting a prototype may force me to CHANGE the rules of the game... But for the time being, I am still working on the "concept" and how the game could play out.

terzamossa wrote:
If I had to wait 20 days for a physical prototype every time I change something it would have taken me 10 years to get to the same stage! We are printing only as we see the game as reviewable basically.

I don't need a "working prototype" to be able to design. I can work on conceptual ideas and mechanics that seem to "mesh" well. And as far as playtesting is concerned, that I will do myself (mostly). When and if I am ready with the design, I would contact Joe and send him a copy to review (once I have a rulebook and a working prototype). And then see what he thinks of the game (is it cool, is it fun, is it strategic, etc.)

***

Getting back to the 4 rules above. Everything will be driven by the RPS-3. So if you play Red and I play Blue, I would win the RPS-3 battle. If I have Power, I would boost +x VPs. If I have Damage, You would lose -x VPs.

I think something simple like that is better and more reasonable.

***

For the most part, I think simple rules like this would be OPTIMAL. I don't want players to be confused as to the "basic combat/battle" mechanics. Once you see the cards (backs), you can easily understand the RPS-3 rules without any memorization. The cards actually explain themselves.

And so you don't need to memorize anything. Just remember some basic ordering rules when looking at the cards.

***

I'm aiming on something deceptively simple, with much depth from the Abilities that are available to use with your Fusion Points (FPs). What those are... That also needs to be figured out... I will work on this in my spreadsheet as I use Excel to keep track of "card designs" without actually having physical copies of them.

Right now with the Global Pandemic ... For me it seems like everything is on PAUSE. In Montreal, the restaurants are closed only open for take-out, the gyms are closed due to high-risk, etc. Mostly essential services are available (Groceries and Pharmacies). And that's great because my designs move forwards while everything else if on-hold.

And so I can fully enjoy the alone-time offered to me during this wildly dangerous times. It's not like I mind working on games on my own time. I always did so before the Pandemic... I will continue to do so afterwards.

Cheers!

questccg
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
The game that delves into your "Psyche"

I wanted the RPS-3 to be the "focal" point of the game. Now with this last iteration of the rules... It is. Why is this important??? Well when you play with an RPS-3, there are ONLY three (3) outcomes:

1> A Tie. Both players choose the same value. Neither wins nor loses.

2> Player #1 is the victorious player.

3> Player #2 is the victorious player.

Now what happens when you PLAY... Is VERY interesting. No doubt there will be "table talk". Like the opposing player seeing that the RPS-3 is Red, Green and Blue. Now goes the Psyche POV: can you out-think your opponent???

Red beats Green. Green beats Blue. Blue beats Red.

Now is it Red...? Or does he/she think you will play Red so he/she will play Blue. And therefore I should play Green...! And the game is afoot. That's what this game is all about.

Maybe he/she thought you would choose Blue and they chose Red in the event that you decided to play Green...?! What say you to that???!!! (Because Red beats Green)

That's what I want this game to be "mostly" about... There are a total of FIVE (5) RPS-3 (different ones). And a color is in three of each RPS-3...

You'd be AMAZED how FUN it is to trying to "out-think" your opponent. And as you play, you also learn your opponent's Micro Deck (composition). The other thing is figuring out your opponent's "tells". The things that show you he is being beaten or is he happy about your choice, etc.

What happens if you PLAY a card not in the RPS-3 chosen by your opponent? Well if the Red, Green and Blue and you play White. You automatically LOSE that "battle". Again very simple rules.

I had a lapse in judgment the other night... Because it had been a while since I touch on the "design". Reading through my notes subsequently gave me a bit of a surprise (nothing was set in stone). And so I made up a simple rule... And the game is no longer "broken"! Cheers.

questccg
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
You were WAY AHEAD of me...

FrankM wrote:
...It sounds like you're stuck on deciding which order in which to play cards...

Indeed the Turn-Order needs some thought. I am using six (6) turn-order tokens and 1st Player must play at least one (1) card and one (1) turn-order token.

But HOW to include who is the "dominant" player for the RPS-3...?

If it was sequential (1 vs. 2, 3 vs. 4, 5 vs. 6) then the ODD player would be in control and the RPS-3 would all be chosen by Player #1.

However in the case where you SELECT your order, the FIRST (1) card could be resolved in turn 6. Hmm...?!

This is definitely going to take some DEEP thinking to understand HOW to manage the turn-order tokens. We'll see... I need to take some time to ponder on HOW this can be handled.

If you have any thoughts/feedback/ideas/comments feel free to share!

Note #1: I think I will keep it SIMPLE. The TURN-ORDER will ALWAYS be "1 vs. 2", "3 vs. 4" and "5 vs. 6". And just re-order the cards... Not sure if this is the BEST approach... But ATM this is the only solution that I have.

I will continue to see if there are other more intuitive ways to resolve this "technical issue/problem"...

questccg
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
I've been doing some playtesting

And it seems like a SIMPLE rule is the "lower" turn-order token should go FIRST in each LANE. So IF Player #1 has a "5" and Player #2 has a "1"... Player #2 in LANE #1 goes first and determines the RPS-3 which will dominate turns related to this lane.

So IF a player wants to be DOMINANT in all three (3) lanes... He/she just needs to draw turn-order tokens 1, 2 and 3. And also play the three (3) cards that he/she wants to be resolved FIRST.

I take back the default turn-order (1 vs. 2, 3 vs. 4 and 5 vs. 6) ... It simply doesn't work (as per my playtests). This NEW method (lower token goes first) actually works in practice (because I've tried it)... Even if the round is done from 1 to 6... The important part is the LANES. You must remember that if you played a "5" turn-order in Lane #1... It's going to force the lane to be resolved to ALMOST the end of the round.

Now I need to STUDY this a bit and see how impactful this really is.

The opposite is possible: 4, 5 and 6. You know that your cards will go LAST in all three (3) lanes. Why would you want to do this??? IDK. You reveal your cards and their RPS-3 ... And give full control to the opponent to choose cards OUTSIDE your colors (RPS-3) making it easier to BEAT you...

Again more in-detail examination into the turn-order is required.

If anyone has some thoughts/feedback/ideas/comments please feel free to reply. Best!

questccg
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
More playtesting tonight and (maybe) tomorrow

I've got to get a better feel for the turn-order ... And so therefore I need to do some more playtesting of just the "variations" of the possible outcomes. Generally I want something "simple" in terms of understanding who decides the RPS-3 and from there the players can decide which tokens they want/need for their hand's strategy.

Doing those few playtests a few evenings ago... Helped in solidifying that I cannot rely on a "specific" turn-order. But this strategy of the lower turn-order amount decides the RPS-3 ... Is very interesting. I'd like some more examples of this to better determine the solution to this particular issue (turn-order sequencing).

questccg
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Didn't get around to tonight's round of playtests

That being said... Tomorrow is a completely NEW day and I should have time to squeeze in a couple "sample turn-orders" and figure out what WORKS and what doesn't.

In any event... Once I do get around to trying some more "turn-orders", I will report back on the progress of this "issue". This issue emerged when I decided to use the RPS-3s as a method by which to EARN or LOSE Victory Points (VPs).

I'm going to take a breather tonight... Maybe just ponder a bit off-line in 15 minutes or so... Cheers!

FrankM
Offline
Joined: 01/27/2017
Turn Order, Part Two

If I'm understanding this correctly, somehow Order Tokens 1 through 6 get distributed to the players, all cards are revealed, then cards 1, 2, and 3 get to pick their Lanes.

If a Lane is defined as picking an opponent then one could spoil an opponent's otherwise good draw by using #1 to pin #2 into a fight, etc.

If a Lane is simply a spot on the table then it actually gives an advantage to those who move late since they get to choose their opponents. That may be balanced by the fact that the lower-numbered card's attack is resolved first.

Curious to see where this leads :)

forum | by Dr. Radut