Skip to Content

New Design: 90% rules already fleshed out!

13 replies [Last post]
questccg's picture
Joined: 04/16/2011

Well a couple of nights ago when I shared with @Ramon (@X3M) some ideas about how to link Bodies with Armaments and such ... I also got a very innovative idea about a project that I had started EARLIEY with @Hamish... Although that project never went really far... The combo of offering up ideas to @X3M and the past project gave me some NEW "ideas" that I wanted to "flesh out"!

So over the period of two (2) days, I managed to write about 95% of the rules for the game. Of course, this is a DRAFT! And when I design some more cards, it will mean more work to get things ready for playtesting...

But I'm HAPPY about this NEW design ... Because it seems pretty NEAT ATM.

It's not a COMPACT design at all. But the rules are very few and very easy to LEARN. Which is great because the game is targeted at gamers ages 13+. And it is going to be FUN to play with Younger Players and older ones too!

I'll let you know how this project advances. Cheers.

Note #1: The old name of the previous game was MM3K. The NEW name of this new revival is MA3K. That's the project CODENAME! Hehehe.

X3M's picture
Joined: 10/28/2013
well then...

Wonder what the result will be :)

questccg's picture
Joined: 04/16/2011
After our chat ... I was totally into my previous TRY!

Yeah ... This one came with all the rule out-of-the-box! This is a FIRST... Usually some aspect of the design "trips me up"... But in this case, I was way ahead of everything that I had put into the earlier version of the design and had rules all ready-to-go in 2 days.

Again it's NOT a "Wargame"... It's a Card Game: Booster Packs!

But I feel MORE confident about selling this NEW concept over "Monster Keep" (MK). Why? Because MK just doesn't have that WOW Factor. The game is so-so. In my book a 5/10 or maybe a 6/10. It's not like TW or CH. Both those games are so much FUN and have so much POTENTIAL ... They are easily 8/10 for both games.

However this NEW concept is very compelling.

Here's the BAD NEWS: I must design 270 cards for the First Release.

I'm working on this... It's going to be tricky and LONG. But I feel like this will be a MUCH BETTER game that MK. I just get that feeling... TBH.

I'll let everyone know HOW it progresses... I also have to work on the WEBSITE for "K2 Games"... That's like 50% done. I have 6-weeks to wrap that project up.

So lot's of "pokers in the fire"... All things get worked on. And look at the bugs/errors: I warned everyone there were issues with the Error Logging and that it could take a couple of weeks. Well the Error Logging was fixed within a week or so... And the errors were all corrected in 1-Day. So I try to stick to my word and make progress on all fronts.


questccg's picture
Joined: 04/16/2011
And to be fair...

I already had a GOOD CONCEPT going with this NEW Game. Meaning I wasn't working from 0%. But at the same time, the old design was using Custom Dice and this new iteration uses NO DICE ATM.

There is ONE (1) aspect to the Cards that "Trips me up" and it's counting HEALTH of the units. I could use Tokens or I could put HP on the cards or I could maybe use a Dry-Erase Marker, etc. Not sure just yet.

The DOWN-SIDE of Tokens: They cost a LOT of money to include.

The DOWN-SIDE of Clips: Cards need to be customized and it could be tricky.

The DOWN-SIDE to Markers: They can write poorly or run out of ink.

The CLIPS is where I am leaning into... But I need to figure out HOW to use them... TBH at the present time, I'm not sure. More thinking needs to be given into that SPECIFIC "Aspect" of the game.


questccg's picture
Joined: 04/16/2011
I've worked on some cards tonight...

X3M wrote:
Wonder what the result will be :)

Basically I fleshed out the "Rareness", "Card Type", and "Category" for 54 units.

I haven't completed all the fields like NAME or STATs of the units... Just that they "exist" and need to be completed.

It's about 1/5th of the way... I still have to ponder about the remaining cards. For those, I will do the SAME exercise and see how many of each type. There are some challenges (TBH) ... I have not resolved them YET!

Maybe tomorrow evening as I have plans for the day...

If I get ANY positive news tomorrow... Be certain that I will disclose it tomorrow night (If I can or if it will still be confidential for a while...)

We'll have to wait and see!


questccg's picture
Joined: 04/16/2011
Last weekend I figured out some important aspects to this idea

So I am going to use five (5) dice as COUNTERS. The counters will serve as a way of tracking "Prizms" which are crystals that generate energy. There are a total of FIVE (5) "Prizms": Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, and Blue.

They naturally flow from LEFT to RIGHT with the LEFT side being more of COMBATIVE role while the RIGHT side is Energy for EQUIPMENT and other ASSETS.

It promises to be INTERESTING as I "design-it". But we'll have to see once I get a chance to PLAYTEST it on replaceable paper cards.

I'm working on it slowly (taking a bit of time here-and-there) to flesh out more details as I move forwards to TRY to finish a prototype of the design.

TBD... Still a LOT of work left over!

questccg's picture
Joined: 04/16/2011
From last weeks ideas... Means that a re-think is necessary!

I've got some thinking to do how to EDIT the Card Stats. Before the idea was that a unit could grow by a certain amount of resources per turn. This has now been changed because now it's a question of ONE (1) resource per turn and each resource ("Prizms") is LIMITED to a maximum.

For example: 3 Blue = at most "3" Blue "Prizms" may be accumulated (MAX).

Although this may seem minor ... It has a DEEP impact on the 40 or so units that I've already designed. It's a pretty stark difference ... TBH.

So a unit that had 1/1/1 ... Was supposed to mean that EACH turn that unit would earn +3 Resources (+1/+1/+1). There was not limit per se. Now it would means that a unit MAXES-OUT at "3 Resources" VERY CRAPPY indeed. Previous stats are no longer LOGICAL.

It's just DIFFERENT and requires a RE-THINK when it comes to each unit TBH.

I know this sounds VERY different and while it is... The design still needs to re-think the STATS and what is available. Like I said it's a Relationship between the LEFT (Combative) and the RIGHT (Equipment/Assets).

I've got some re-thinking to do (some more). While I like the "Prizms" and how the energy WORKS. I'm just not sure how to implement this on existing units that had already been designed.

We'll see... I will think about this...

questccg's picture
Joined: 04/16/2011
Got to admit it... IDK if it is 90% ... Yet!

The game is going to be called "Duel Botz" (DB). And even though I THOUGHT about a lot of the rules, usually I don't design this way. I USUALLY focus on a specific mechanic and try to "flesh things out" from there...

But with this design I guess you could say I did something similar too... @X3M inspired me with this whole "Weapon + Body" concept and I clearly had some kind of direction to explore. So the rules came very QUICK... But when I (thought) I had reached 95%... I realized the more I worked in the rulebook, the more I found that the design was INCOMPLETE.

Generally speaking it was missing DETAILS. Yeah sure the rules sort of just glanced over the concept and I used relatively easy language ... But it was NOT a PLAYABLE product.

And so I've had to go back and see if it's even 50% done. Like I said the penmanship of the rules was done rather quickly but it didn't give specifics about HOW(?) it all was supposed to work at the finest DETAIL level.

For example with @X3M's idea of "Weapon + Body", I knew I wanted to separate the cards... But TRUTH be told, I had to figure out HOW I was going to SPLIT things between "Body" and "Weapon"... What were the SHARING rules and as I found out PARTS from "The Game Crafter" (TGC) that I wanted to use were NO LONGER SOLD (Out-of-stock)... So this forced me to think about other ways of handling the SIMPLE "division" of those two entities.

I still am SEARCHING for ALTERNATIVES. And I am thinking about POLYHEDRAL dice and how I MIGHT(!?) be able to introduce these ... Maybe I could make a collaboration or just use STANDARD POLYs... IDK.

Something like D4, D6, D8, D10, D12 and D20. And use the D20 as a Health Counter so from 10 to 200 HP (Pretty Decent) and then use the other dice for the various "Prizms" that produce Energy (D4 to D12). It of course IMPACTS the design IMMENSELY... And I've just been working on THINKING on HOW(!!) to make the design better ... More attractive and TIGHTER.

POLYs might be the answer... So far this is very EMBRYONIC ideas.

But thinking about how this design should move forwards... Maybe I am CLOSER to 50% than 95% or 90% as I had thought. I will jot down some notes about these IDEAS and see what can come of the ideas!

For now... I need some more time... Will report back soon (when I have a better idea of what is good, bad and improvable)!

questccg's picture
Joined: 04/16/2011
It's not that SIMPLE ... TBH!

I initially thought I was going to use "Futuristic/Sci-Fi" Cubes but realized that the MANAGEMENT of those Cubes would be TOO CHAOTIC. Next I had the idea of using Standard D6s and found that was NOT FLEXIBLE enough. So NOW I've sort of moved on to POLYs...

Previously I had a SPECTRUM of COLORS (Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, and Blue)...

But with D6s. Now with POLYs ... I want players to BRING THEIR OWN. I don't want to be in the "business" of selling DICE. As this complicates matters and I've realized that focusing on the GAME is enough. The BEST solution is that the player's go a use the POLYs they like best!

There is another up-spin for this: I don't need to SELL them meaning it lowers the TCO (Total Cost of Ownership). I means I can retail game at a lower price point since I DON'T need to provide ALL the necessary components.

And besides, everyone is going to bring their most SEXIEST dice possible and there will be plenty of EYE-CANDY to watch.

For example: Let's say there are a MAXIMUM FOUR (4) Botz IN PLAY that can be available to the player. Each one requires it's OWN D20 because of the Reserves versus "Duel" position. If you SWAP a "Duel Bot" with one in the Reserve ... It KEEPS its HP (D20) but loses all other "Resources". This seems like the MOST "logical" outcome ATM.

But this implies that you NEED FOUR (4) D20s of different colors and that the OTHER "Resources" come in another "color" (D4 to D12). I've got that many and actually invested in one Black/Gray & Gold POLYs for $10 CAD. I should get them tomorrow... (Prime delivery in less than 24-Hours).

I will ponder more about the IMPACT of these POLYs will have on the game.

This is where I will leave the status of the GAME ATM!


questccg's picture
Joined: 04/16/2011
POLYs are GOOD... Received them today!

Well I picked-up my Black & Smoke/Gold Premium Polyhedral Dice Sets today... They look pretty decent and I have made some "conclusions" about the game itself... What kind of "conclusions" you ask?!

Well to start, I don't want to be in the Business of Selling DICE. This is a VERY important point... Why(?) Because it would affect the pricing of the game and this is something that I am trying to avoid.

Basically I'm trying to get the game sold for $40 CAD (which is about $30 USD).

Making the game MORE "affordable" in terms of price point is VERY important. Again the reasoning behind this is the MORE it costs to buy, the less people (think Gamers) will be interested. If it's $40 CAD that's not too bad. Pricey but still yet not "overboard"...

And of course with the scenario of INCLUDING Standard D6s again I'm not at all interested in charging the customer for the "extras" so-to-speak. People that are interested in Board Games usually have a bunch of Polys they have no CLUE what to do with any of them: now you can play "Duel Botz" with them! Again aside from AD&D adventures... Polys are not as frequently used as standard dice in most designs (and I've TRIED to use them BEFORE and for the first time, the POLYs a perfect for this design... They actually WORK)!

So the goal is to DRIVE DOWN the price to be as affordable as possible.

Limited production may produce limited buyers ... But I think that I have some solutions that I can explore to ENTICE more players in coordination with the people that I deal with (FLGS owners) and maybe from some "grassroot" level, there may be the option of selling more sets for some kind of "tournament" with a grand prize and everything... IDK. To be seen and we'll see how many people are interested after TRYING the game TBH.

I've done some more thinking LAST NIGHT after closing up shop for the day and it seems like the POLYs are something of a GOOD IDEA! This is the very first time that the various dice work in favor of the design... And that's something very POSITIVE. We'll have to wait and see how I continue to design the game and work out all the details.

I also received my "Stickers" for the Boxes... They look pretty good too. My Aunt who saw them said: "The 'S' looks like a '2'... and not a 'Z'!" And that too is part of my play: it's a "Z" but looks like a "2"! So the name could be interpreted as "Duel Bot 2" but is in reality "Duel Botz". I'm pleased with HOW(!) they look. I guess it's a LESS "Fancier" Logo ... But will do fine enough for me TBH. I don't want to DROP $350 CAD for a professional Logo... With some kind of DESIGN and such... I already bought a NICE FONT and added a linen texture to the gradient ... And made it look "reflective" a bit... That's enough for the LOGO. I want the game to speak for itself. Not just real cool ART.

All that's left are the BOXES ... Which I hope to get some time NEXT week. Maybe in five (5) days or so. That will be another challenge and we will see if the merchandise is GOOD "quality" (I hope!) We shall see... TBD.

My next update will be either when I solidify the POLYs in the design (which for the most part I HAVE) and the next time when I receive the BOXES... In any event we'll have to wait and see.

This is YET another design that I THOUGHT would REQUIRE "Dry-Erase Markers" but it turns out NO... I've found alternate solutions using the POLY dice as trackers much like what Magic: the Gathering (MtG) does with the Health Points (HP): they use one D20 Polyhedral Die. So my design requires four (4) of them.

Again this is all good and is very presentable so far. I am happy with the overall progress ... How the design is "maturing" and what I hope will be a very compelling game!

Keeping you all posted... Cheers all.

questccg's picture
Joined: 04/16/2011
One more comment

With the addition of the POLYs ... The price can cost maybe $40 CAD MORE or double the price if you need five (5) Polyhedral Dice Sets. Again if you have some dice around your home... Then it costs $0.00 Extra; you just use the dice that you already have!

I'm TRYING to make the price of the product as LOW as possible (lower the barrier to entry) and encourage more people to TRY. We'll see ...

But having YOUR OWN POLY Dice is a WAY of lowering the cost of the product. Just like Coins and Dice are not included in most Trading and/or Collectible Card Games.

This brings up another point: it will be a COLLECTIBLE Card Game (CCG). It will NOT be a TRADING Card Game (TCG). I don't want people to TRADE cards but instead COLLECT them. Also the FORMAT just doesn't work either. I predict that the goal will be an "EXPERIENCE" not just a GAME. Something like that.

That's why having your OWN "POLYs" is the direction that I am headed in...


questccg's picture
Joined: 04/16/2011
Got the SAMPLE and BLANK cards today!

Well even if the alignment isn't the "best", the sample cards still look pretty decent! TBH I was a bit surprised at the overall LOOL & FEEL of them. Sure when you proof them on the computer you might think: "Hmm... They look pretty nice!" But the truth is sometimes when you print them out, you don't quite get the same feel. I also find that on-screen you see MORE "details" and when you PRINT ... there are LESS "details" as the colors sort of look darker and have less CONSTRAST.

I did the UV Coating on the both the SAMPLE Cards and the BLANKS... I'm a bit in between games and so I have not had time to invest in this NEW design. Anyhow, they look decent (even though they are SIMPLE in design).

More designing and evolution to happen soon enough.


Note #1: I got six (6) of three (3) cards because IF I order less than 18 cards the price is the same for say only 3 cards. So I made six (6) of each (to maybe share and see if they are liked or not...)

Note #2: I also UV Coated 108 (2x 54 = 108) BLANK Cards to do some playtesting with. The idea is that if I shuffle them and they have some writing on them, they writing will smudge or get removed. So my solution was UV Coat the cards and write on them and THEN put them in sleeves (the cheap ones)... This will mean that the writing will not get removed and the UV Coating will allow EDITING and RE-WRITING of the content of some (if not all) of the cards.

questccg's picture
Joined: 04/16/2011
Flirting with this design and how excited I am about it.

In terms of all the knowledge and experience (I can't say that I am a MASTER in any of these Card Games... but) in knowing how these games are structured and the normal method of play for:

1> Pokémon TCG

2> Hearthstone TCG

3> Magic: the Gathering CCG

Yeah I've seen some pretty weird Pokémon TCG Decks... But the real problem with Pokémon is that you CANNOT "Trade" cards you get for FREE. You must BUY Pre-Con Decks and then THOSE cards can be added to your online collection. But this is real crappy when you are trying to build a Deck. You simply can't BUY the SINGLES or CARDS you want in Pokémon TCG ONLINE.

Hearthstone introduces the whole "Gradual Power" and ensures that it is NOT a "creep" factor. To this specific aspect, I say: "Congratulations: something simple that actually WORKS!" But here's the deal... Can't we make it just a bit more complicated to squeeze out a little bit more "Strategy"???

Lastly the biggest and baddest of the three (3) = MtG or MagicA. We'll start with MagicA. This game is ALL about YOUR DECK. The tutorials and simulated play all show that the winning is done 90% by the DECK and not how the game is played. The other problem with MagicA is that it has it's OWN CARDS... That's right there are MagicA cards which do not exist in Paper format (MtG). That sucks major crap because this means the decks you play and DESIGN in MagicA, you cannot (I STRESS "CANNOT") create in MtG!

Why does ANY of this matter???

We'll I'm working on a Blended Design of ALL THREE (3) of these games. It's NOT FINAL, I'm still actively working on the DESIGN (maybe like 50% done...) But there are things to think about and worry about (like Power Creep) which will ultimately influence the design but I have not FIGURED OUT(!?) just yet.

There is still much more work to be done. However I will say that this design is VERY exciting and it's going to feature the introduction of "COMBOS" which is something of a mechanic NEVER used in any of my PREVIOUS Designs/Games.

Yes in TradeWorlds there are some Take-That cards that can be combined... But again the focus is on TAKE-THAT. In this design, is more like SYNERGY and various cards working well TOGETHER. A Configured Deck is more about having the right cards that compliment the rest of your Actors...

Anyways I will post more about this Game/Design as I work to iron out some of the issues that I have with the game...

Cheers all!

questccg's picture
Joined: 04/16/2011
Still working on this game "currently"

I am thinking about the DESIGN and how to impact the it and change it so that it is BETTER. I've made a DECISION on the D4 which is that the D4 is the NUMBER (#) of Weapons that can be attached. Like if you have a "3" it means you can have "3x" Class-1 or "1x" Class-2 and "1x" Class-1... The idea is that the CLASS ADD up to the D4 Value (which is 1 to 4).

That all works and sounds logical TBH.

But I'm still not convinced about the D6, D8 and D10.

The D12 is the coolant and how rapidly the Heat Level may be reduced per turn. Sure if it's "12" well that means you can use some REAL POWERFUL weapon or do multiple ATTACKS be TURN.

Which LEADS me NOW to believe that the D4 should be "Rate of Attack", 1 = Once, 2 = Twice, etc. And the D6 Should be for the CLASSES and configuration of the weapons...

IDK ... I need to think some more about this... Like I said, "6" Classes feels like a LOT. But maybe you are ALLOWED at MAX only "3" Weapons with the corresponding Classes matching the D6. Leave a lot of room for more weaponry, I like that... So we'll have to wait and see.

More though required!

Note #1: What I am thinking is something like this:

D4 = "2" which means a weapon MAY attack TWICE per TURN.

D6 = "3" which means that the classification means that you have either "3x Class-1" or "1x Class-1 + 1x Class-2" or "1x Class-3"

And combining D4 + D6 = ???

Still needs more thought because I don't want 6x Class-1 or for that matter 12x Class-1... Needs more reflexion...

Syndicate content

forum | by Dr. Radut