Work at SourceForge, help us to make it a better place! We have an immediate need for a Support Technician in our San Francisco or Denver office.
I've been thinking about Werocia-specific card types, especially permanents.My opinions:
- Artifacts and Buildings are too similar. I like concept of building functionality, but there's no need to create 2 separate permanent types. I'd say make Buildings subcategory of Artifacts, just like Artifact Creature is subcategory of Artifact. (for those who didn't read rules page - Buildings are permanents that can be entered by creatures, and have specified capacity. Many effects can be played only if building is filled with creatures. Creatures in buildings can't participate in combat.)
- Same goes for Lands and Terrains. I understand that Terrains are going to be meant for defense etc. Like Leonin Blade Trap or Crawlspace in MTG. They usually hinder attacking creatures.
Why not just make Terrain subcategory of Land ? Actually, why have them separate at all ?
The reason I'm ranting about this is very simple, yet can have large impact on gameplay. There are 4 types of permanents in MTG, and cards are generally made to affect one permanent type. If more, they're more expensive.
The thing that bothers me is that spreading yourself too thin isn't good. If Werocia is going to have 6 types of permanents without a good reason, you'll probably need more cards to take care of them.
In MTG, some combos can't be stopped with some colors. For example Black can do very little about artifacts, and even less about enchantments. Now, in Werocia with 6 permanent types, it may be even harder to stop some combos for some colors.
I suggest we don't add new card types if they make game artificially more complex without obvious benefits. It's better to make subcategories of Lands and Artifacts, if needed.
Now, to make my post constructive, I have an idea:
- I like Evermind-like spells. For those of you who don't know Kamigawa MTG block, Evermind is a spell that can't be played itself. If you play specific kind of spell, you may pay extra mana, reveal Evermind in your hand, and get extra benefit. In case of Evermind, draw a card.
I think that developing wide range of Evermind-like spells would be cool, and would actually add something to gameplay. Such cards would have obvious benefits: can't be targeted like permanents can, but work much like permanents. Such benefits mean they must have some disadvantages, too. I suggest: higher mana cost (when compared to spells&effects), and possible other restrictions like "you can't play this card if you control more than 2 creatures".
Benefits from adding such cards to Werocia include:
- Discard would be more useful, and more reliable power. At the moment, in MTG, discard is very useful if you can use it early, and often worthless in mid-late game, where players often have 0 cards in hands, depending on deck.
- Cards which allow looking into opponent's hand would be more useful. Much more useful. Do you know Telepathy from MTG ? Enchantment for 1 blue mana, opponents play with their hands revealed. You know what ? No one uses it. Because it doesn't matter. You can predict, but it's too late - you've already built your deck, and mtg decks are inflexible.
The evermind thing sounds cool. I think it would all require lots of conceptualization and intensive playtesting but it could be done.
I also agree that "land" and "terrain" should be the same thing.
I also wanted to mention an idea I had concerning card types. In magic there are creatures that all have subtypes like "Creature - Elf" or "Creature - Sliver" ect. What if in Werocia, Instants, Articfacts, sorceries, ect all had subtypes as well. I know they tried this in Magic with "Arcane instants", but I think if we started off with this in mind werocia could really take advantage of these spells. Cards would be able to target specific subtypes of cards, and cards with the same subtypes might even be similar or work together. Just a thought. Anyone want to comment on this?
BTW I think we really need a lot more discussion about the rules and we need the creators of the game to start considering these changes or at least offering their own. The more I read it, the more Werocia sounds like a cheap rip off of MTG (No Offense, Werocia is a great game but it just needs to have a few more defining features that separate it from it's predecessor). It's hard to design an entire card game but we have the combined creativity and manpower of an entire gaming community. Lets all get involved and create the best game we can!
I have a theory what Avery Yen/vlcyen (which is name and which surname ? No idea...) meant by terrains. I've been examing rules of other card games to search for interesting rules, and I've found Guardians game.
There, you have a board 3x4 (I believe), fortressess on both ends... and you can set terrain in the way you want (on your part of the map).
For example Spires terrain disallows flyers. In Forest ranged units can't be used. Etc.
Of course, it's a good thing to have 100% original rules. It's just that it's hard to come up with something 100% original AND playable. MTG is very playable, and using it as a base is not a bad idea. However, I think there are some things that went wrong in MTG. Despite soooo many different cards, there's only handful of top strategies that work well (have high win ratio). You end up seeing same cards over and over.
You may create a very interesting combo, back it up with several other cards and create amazing synergies.. and all it takes is single Disenchant/Naturalize to break it. Or Shock if it's creature based.
What's much worse: counterspells. They're bane of creativity. Bane of every combo deck. They promote primitive aggro decks, because only such decks work reasonably well against counterspells. I would agree for counterspells in Werocia, but only if they were weakened (for example creatures like Spiketail Hatchling or Daring Apprentice). In case of these 2 you know what you can expect, and you can plan workarounds.
That's why I suggested multiple libraries: to make decks versatile and able do deal with various situations.
The "guy in charge" said in one of topics he'd be gone for good part of summer holidays. Gone for one month I think. Don't expect him anytime soon.
I really don't like creature types. I don't like cards that work against certain narrow types of cards, usually expansion-specific (NO ONE will be using arcane cards in extended, unless they have no better counterpart).
I also don't like whole idea of "protection from x" or "destroy all islands" or "mountainwalk". Sideboards are pain in the ass to manage.
However, I like cards like Story Circle (protection from chosen color), and think that all protection/prevention cards should work like this. That's because I don't like cards which are made artificially good against particular color. There's no need for that. There are other, subtler, more versatile and portable ways to underline advantages one color has over another.
For example Black has some very mean and destructive stuff, but is vulnerable to enchanments and artifacts (can't destroy them). Red, and especially green, have few flying creatures.
Using cards which target narrow range of enemy cards is very risky, and potentially frustrating. I prefer "counter target activated ability from artifact source" to "destroy target Kavu". The former can be used in interesting combos. You can transform enemy stuff to artifacts and so on.
If it depended on me solely, I'd forget creature types altogether. They don't promote interesting decks. Goblin King: all goblins get +1/+1. Cool ! Now I wonder what kind of deck you can create with that. I bet it's going to be very suprising. You'll be using Goblin King in combos with many elves, beasts, Vulshok Sorcerer, Orcish Artillery, Shivan Dragon etc, right ?
Not a chance. Every deck with Goblin King will be same old stuff. Lots of small creatures and early attack.
End of rant
As usual when I'm ranting, I forgot about my point alltogether.
yes, so far Werocia is close to mindless MTG clone, but even small changes to rules can make it wholy new game (like multiple libraries - think about choices involved: should my extra decks be filled with suplementary cards to boost my combo, or to deal with possible enemy troublemakers ?)
Buildings can be interesting, if only because they seem to be widely available way to protect creatures (from attacks, but - I believe it was mentioned somewhere - also from hostile spells). As a cost, a creature in building couldn't usually use its activated abilites. And so on. And there may be cards which work for hiding creatures, too (in same way that "it can't be regenerated" works in MTG: some slightly more expensive cards have it)
Ability to attack a specific creature will dramatically change the way combat works. So far it's hard to say how would it play. It needs to be playtested.
Counterspells should be weaker, I think (more expensive), because they discourage creativity.
Every color should have means to deal with any kind of card. For example, if white can destroy creatures (swords to plowshares, final judgement, wrath of god, chastise) there should be some black cards to deal with enchantments and artifacts, just not so good/versatile.
I won a game once by using Relic Bane (1BB, enchant artifact: controler loses 2 life/turn). Losing life can't be prevented... enemy has holed up and tried to finish off my library. (Mesmeric Orb). Relic Bane is not a card you can expect win a game for you, but it helps a bit.
Similarly, I'd give red, and potentially black, a handicaped but interesting way to deal with enchantments.
Chaos Flux - R
target enchanment is blank until end of turn
...............and another card, more expensive, doing this for all enchantments until end of turn.
......and another one with "all other enchantments are blank".
Blank effect would work like this: enchantment remains in play, but does nothing. It just sits there and waits for effect to expire. This is a very interesting mechanic and I'll be proposing such cards for Werocia.
What if the "Terrain" system were as such.
You could get terrain cards. Each would have different advantages or disadvantages given to buildings and units placed on them. On the border of the terrain cards there would be arrows signifying which sides you could place other adjacent terrain cards onto. Each player would have a separate "Terrain" deck consisting of just terrains and in the beggining both players would begin by placing one of there terrains along the others. From there the players could connect their other terrains in the desegnated patterns to create to sides with interesting maze like shapes. Creatures would have a new speed attribute and would beable to move across the "Map" formed by the terrains. Creatures can only be played on the terrain physically clostest to its controller, or on any terrain where that player controlls a building. Buildings could only be played where a creature you controll is present. Artifacts/enchantments/mana generating cards would be played off the map and instants/sorceries would be discarded as normal. The 10 crystals that the players controll would be played in different places across the map in the beggining of the game. To win you must destroy all 10 of your opponents before he destroys yours.
It certainly is different. It would totally make combos harder to use since the crystals are spread out. Additionally the movement of your creatures and placement of buildings would add a whole new level of strategy. The only problem I forsee is gametime: The games would probably take 20 minutes long though Im sure we could come up with a way to make it faster.
I don't mind if you don't like it, but please somebody: Get inspired by it.
I think it's the way (more less) Guardians work. But I heard there's 3x4 board there.
Not sure what you mean about combos being harder. Crystals are equivalent of life, more less.
Artifacts could be captured, but not enchanments - they're insubstantial.
To make game short enough you just have to make sure playing field isn't too big. But there are two things I like about it:
- multiplayer games (3 and more) would feel more natural... and we could keep boredom at bay by playing on various maps. Why, we could even have each table with diffrent map ! (some squares would be forced to certain terrain, like sea, mountain, desert...)
- there's potential to make ranged units work. Spells could have limited range. Let's say that you could play spells only if you had a Wizard creature nearby.
Lots of potential here.
- what I don't like about it is that it may make Werocia into domination-style game. If both players start with 5 lands, and one of them captures a land, it's 6 vs 4 now. From 4 player's viewpoint, enemy is 50% stronger. We should make sure it's not all about terrain control.
There could be spells which affect all stuff on targeted square. You could still put all eggs in one basket (all artifacts/units/stuff on one square) but that would carry risks.
We would have to redesign lots of stuff, of course - if it takes say... 4 turns to reach enemy with your creatures, it shouldn't be allowed to execute gamewinning combos faster than that.
In case I didn't make myself clear: I think making Werocia card game/board game (cardboard for short) is the way to go - a way to make it not just mtg clone.
I read the rules of gaurdians and I dont see much resemblence. Mabey i didnt explain myself as best I could. It would be best if i had a diagram so im going to make a small webpage to have pictures and charts.
Interesting at first, but I don't quite like it.
My major concern map layout. Look at the example map you produced. It looks like players would fight fiercely for the middle - whoever controls the middle, controls the Dune.
I mean - there''s nothing to prevent a player from putting two 4-sided lands in front, and 20 lands forming a line. You could make lots of lands almost inaccessible this way - very easy to defend. Smells of abuse.
Just have some wall-like creatures in deck and you can execute combos safely.
Why not have fixed board size ? For example 5x5 square for two players. Then each player would play terrain cards there, face down. Terrains would be revealed once a creature goes near. (regarless of side - there's need to prevent such abuse as walking through facedown sea).
When attacking, you could use all creatures from squares surrounding target square. Starting from that point, it would count as declare attackers phase.
Creatures from targeted square could be allowed as defenders. (You select targets for your attackers. Then defender gets a chance to select intercepting creatures. Intercepted creatures don't reach their target.)
There could be additional rules/creature abilities determining if a creature from adjacent square could come to help as additional defender, but it wouldn't be all that common.
You could play most spells - except typically offensive spells - on squares you control only. To control a square, you'd have to 1) get a creature there first 2) have that creature not attack for one turn.
There's nothing preventing you from having squares you control not connected - but some creatures and more powerful permanents would require a link between it and your "base" or wizard creature.
In many cases a square could not be captured until a building standing there is stormed. In such case, neither of players would count as controlling the square (I mean if there are player A's creatures and player B's building in there).
Ranged attacks: ranged attacks could be executed from adjacent squares, but unlike melee/flying creatures, they wouldn't be placed on "cleared" square if battle is won.
It should be noted that board-based Werocia encourages extending creature aspect of the game. I have nothing against more creature-based decks, even for weird colors like Spirit etc. Their creatures will just have strange abilities not related to combat directly.
One more thing: I think it serves MTG badly to have default card draw of 1. With Werocia, especially with game fields like 5x5 etc, I'd say let's make 3 cards/turn default.
Think about how it affects typical mtg game. The game started. Your opponent draws two creatures, just enough for lands he has in play.
Now you draw two cards - two lands. Cool, you have 6 lands on the table early. And nothing substantial in hand. You're rewarded for this by being attacked twice for 10 damage total.
What I mean is that in time required to draw two cards LOTS of things can happen in mtg, for example you can be attacked for lots of damage. Drawing 2 lands in a row in mid-late fame is often a major disaster. MTG is very, very dependant on luck,
In response to what you said:
Yeah I suppose the map system I have doesnt work to well.I still like it but i conceed that it needs some work. Mabey one day in the future I'll reconsider it but for now lets compromise.
I like your idea with the set board. What I'm concerned with though is if we had a set board size, would it also have a set shape? If the shape was always square or rectangular, battles would get boring quickly and taking advantage of the terain would not be as powerful. I agree that mabey we should at least consider a board based system (especially because its so easy to do in cyberspace. If it were a real card game you'd have to walk around with a playmat and look really stupid.). I definatley thing that not only should the terrain cards change in the map but the shape of the the map should too. What if there was some sort of mechanism in the program itself to create a "Random map game" with the existing terrains you controll (Similar to some real time strategies ive played like age of empires and star craft). It could create a random shape and then players would have to fit their cards inside the shape in to a landform that they choose.
About my other ideas: Do you still like the idea of having a set number or crystals across the map, and having them being captured?
Finally, I like the card draw idea but mabey 3 is a little too much. There should always be some luck involved in a game: It's the ultimate balancer. It makes each game different and gives even weak players a small chance to win so that the game stays interesting. What if 2 draws were the default?
You know if we keep getting cool ideas like this, and could some how combine them, I'd bet we'd have a pretty ultimate game on our hands. I think we should definatley stick with the map/board idea and make it a bit more tactical (after all the game is about a "war" between city states). The ranged units are a cool innovation. I'm sure we can figure all of this out in the end and make a half way decent ccg.
1. As I said few posts above, board size/shape could differ between gccg tables. But random generation and then having players fill it is not that bad.
2. Crystals on board and capturing them: I don't like this idea too much becasue there are some problems associated with system which give power for land controlled. (in strategy games). Such games often suffer from following disease: winner keeps on winning, and loser keeps on losing. In other words, as I said above: Let's say we both start with 5 crystals each. Now I take 1 of your crystals. Now I have 6 and you have 4. From your point of view I have 50% more crystals to use in spells/whatever.
If you can think of some ways of balancing that, why not... But you get the idea.
3. With 5x5 board I don't think 3 cards/turn is so much. I didn't say that, but I also had something else in mind: 3 is much bigger integer than 1 or even 2, and operating on bigger integers is easier. It's easier to balance them later.
I'm thinking about making something like Vanguards. You know, at start of the game you choose a set of special abilities. Only more balanced/less powerful than in MTG. In MTG you could choose Mirri and have basic lands give you mana of any color, or Hanna and your spells cost 1 less to cast, or Gerrard and draw 2 cards/round. Gerrard sounds like red burn deck's dream, neh ? He sure is.
Now look how vast rift is there between drawing 1 card and drawing 2 cards/round. Gerrard draws twice as many cards in MTG !
Now you probably understand why I'd like 3 cards/round default. Because there's more room left. Other characters could have draw of 2, but, for example, ability to look into opponent's hand. And so on. It's easier to balance it with basic draw of 3.
By the way: high draw's effect on gameplay: you're going to have more choices in your rounds. CHoices are good in strategy games.
I don't think it would remove randomness from the game.
4. What do you mean "weak players would still have a chance" ? Take a look at MTG. Johny the Hardcore Player has 4x Umezawa's Jitte in his deck. Joe Average has one (from boosters), because the card costs a lot.
Unless we remove "collective" from "ccg", then you'd be right. I don't like "collective" part of mtg, by the way - for reasons mentioned above. What can Joe Average do with Umezawa's Jitte ? Play his one and only Jitte - Johny will play his, and legend rule comes into play.
Shatter it - you can still remove counters in response. And so on. Just like Divining Top it's one of cards that are very hard to deal with.
In response to your points:
1. As long as the board is different, then I'm happy. Nuff said.
2. What I meant about the crystals was this: Not only would they be captured but they would not be used to pay for spells. Something else could do that. Crystals would just be tokens. If the winning conditions were say something else (For instance, Life Points) then what would be the point of having a board? Do you have any alternate winning conditions in mind?
3. I agree reluctantly, but I think mabey the decks should be generally bigger as well as hand size to allow for more draws. Mabey even a higher card limit (Mabey instead of 4 of a card per deck, 5?). Just a thought.
4. What I mean is that if the game were made with no unknown or chaotic element, then one strategy would work all the time and the person who goes first or the one who knew the strategy the best could win. There would be no point in playing or watching a game because the outcome would always be the same and aditionally there would be no challenge as you'd be helpless to play out the same game every time. Card draws are one way to add some interest into the game. For example one player might have a card or card combo that lets him win every time, but if his opponent is lucky then he might not draw it.
That also brings me to another thought: Card combos would probably be easier to play if 3 cards were drawn instead of one. Combo decks are generally dependent on two factors: Making the combo that makes you win every game you play it, and Increasing their chances of drawing the combo. The more cards you draw at a time would no doubt increase the probability of combo draws (though it might increase the chances that the opponent may draw a card to counter it.). We would have to take extra precautions to make combos longer and more complex in order to counteract this effect.
Actually you know what: In general le'ts keep combos complex and weak. Combos can be fun to play when they add to your deck, and still allow a lot of fun to occur. On the other hand MTG has a lot of really big combos that are often so powerful that entire decks are built around them. These decks annoy me alot because the games become less interesting. There are only two possible outcomes generally speaking: They draw their combo quickly and I loose OR They dont draw their combo and since their deck is nothing but their combo and ways to draw it,and I win without a fight. In both ways there is not much challenge involved in winning or loosing. Your thoughts?
I wish there were a way to edit posts because i often get an idea right after i type something.
Heres a way to create interesting shapes for maps. What if on the 5X5 board we required players to roll a die. The die would determine the ammount of "Water" to be placed on the map. Water would be a token that would occupy the grid and land creatures could not occupy these spaces (Would this open the possibility of sea creatures?) The water would alternatley be placed one by one buy the players. You could place the water anywhere as long as you didnt divide your landmass into to or more pieces. Your thoughts?
2. Hmm. I see where are you going now. So winning condition would be to hold most/all crystals, right ? That could work. But I think it should still be possible to capture small amount of crystals and hole up/defend them while preparing something nasty.
(It's not very compatible with official Werocia story to have crystals scattered, but it's just story)
3. Drawing cards
If cards were just as "strong" as in mtg, then it would be a bad idea. (Red burn decks or weenie comes to mind - they would benefit much more than others). The solution might be to make cheap spells a bit worse. You couldn't deal 3 damage for 1 mana, for instance. Or 1/1 creature would cost 1C on average (C - color).
Anyway, I'd like to test Werocia with various draws, including 1/turn. We'll see once we start testing it.
No, increasing limit for same card to more than 4 seems to accomplish exactly what you don't like - it makes it easier for players to build a deck around single combo. Inreasing deck size sounds like a nice idea (but how about multiple libraries ?), but I'll keep card limits as they are. This way a player would have more choices/round, but chance of drawing specific card would be lower.
I'd rather have limit lowered to 3, but that may be overkill.
4. Random element must be there. I agree - strategy games with no randomness tend to promote using "best" strategies. Randomness rewards people who adapt. Who make their decks flexible.
Combos: I agree. The need to traverse the board to reach your enemy with creatures means that creatures will less useful when compared to MTG. And enemy would have more time to use combos.
Moreover, creature killing spells should be less plentiful/a bit weaker, because it takes more time and effort to use creatures.
Take a look at Pyroclasm. If it worked just like in MTG (2 damage to every creature for 2 mana), it would be devastating in Werocia. Let's assume it takes 4 turns to reach enemy "base" or crystal with creatures, and attacking player summons 1 creature/round. What would you do as defending player (with Pyroclasm) ? Wait, of course - and you can kill about 4 creatures with 1 Pyroclasm, AND that's before you start taking damage.
I'd make burn spells a bit more limited by limiting their range (x tiles from certain kind of creature, or a building for another spell, or can be used only if x)
Water: I thought it's obvious we need some tiles that can't be reached by most/all creatures. The shape of board varies this way. But allowing players to place water whenever they want can be abusable. Even if it's still 1 landmass one player could place water to slow enemy advance a lot.
I'd rather have map randomly generated - but always symetrical.
If possible, a smart algorithm should be used to assure the map won't become mazelike - (where it takes 50 turns to go from point A to point B).
Symetry is a bit boring, but I'd gladly sacrifice some my "freedom" to have a bit more balanced game.
Creature speed. We need to discuss creature speed. There are two ways to do it:
1. Every (or vast majority) creature moves 1 turn/round.
pros: simplicity, and, strangely - tactics. Situation on battlefield is less chaotic. (for examples of chaotic combat, play Heroes of Might&Magic 1-3)
cons: not very good with big boards (5x5 or larger)
2. Speed of creatures varies.
Pros: creatures can be more unique. It's easier to deal with larger maps.
Cons: game is more chaotic. You can outflank enemy easily, unless...
Unless additional feature is introduced: Control zones. Just like some strategy games have it. Control zone consists of all squares adjacent to a creature.
How does it work ? If a creature has 10 movement points, and at any time it passes through a square controled by enemy, it has to stop there. In other words, you can't enter enemy Conrol Zone and leave it in same turn. This means it's much harder to sneak past enemy lines.
Squares or hexes: I recommend hexes.
Hexes may seem weird at first, but the reason why many strategy games are using hexagonal tiles is because distances are more true this way.
In square-based games, you can go 10 squares up, then 10 squares right. Or you can go 10 squares down, then 10 squares right. Or you can go 10 squares DIAGONALLY, and in each case you use exactly the same amount of movement points. That's broken.
Ok i think we are getting somewhere now. Weve ruled out a lot of things so far and weve also agreed on some major points.
Just wish the guys who made the game would show up once. How long will they be on vacation? Lol !
BTW Ive been on vacation the past 4 days if you're wondering why I took long to respond.
You know, I think either way we make the game no matter how we change the way you draw cards or how you use them there will always be combos I suppose. I guess your right: We should just keep cards and limits the way they are. I suppose the ways to deal with combos are to A: not let them happen (Unlikley unless you want every card in the game to suck) or B: Deal with them as they come. Each expansion, try to make the combos from the previous expansion a little less powerful. That could work I suppose. There is a 3rd option which is C: Ban Cards, but I think a lot of people wouldn't support this unless the card was designed without a lot of thought.
Control Areas/ Zones: I like the idea however completley stopping a creature doesnt sound cool to me. I thought that creatures with a lot of speed could have an offensive advantage because of their speed. Stopping them woud just limit fast yet weak creatures to defensive roles. What if we could hinder a creatures speed without actualy stopping it?
Squares/Hexes: I agree that hexes allow for more freedom of movement without creating strange innacuracies like square grids do. The only thing I'd worry about is would we have to make hexagonal terrain cards/maps/ect? I'm not concerned with this right now because our map system is still under construction.
Yes, there will always be combos unless we make all cards very boring. But I'd prefer combos to be useful rather than gamebreaking.
In MTG, if you play against red, you can use Worship + tough creature (preferably with protection(s), like Pristine Angel). That should defeat 98% of red decks with little effort...assuming that you manage to get these 2 cards.
My suggestions how to deal with combos:
- if it has weak points and isn't particularly devastating, leave it alone.
- increase mana cost of gamebreaking cards
- change gamebreaking cards (for example make an ability playable only in certain phase, or require additional sacrifice, or sth)
Creature speed - there's still room for little creatures. First of all, assuming that small creature costs 2 times less than bigger creature, you can have 2 creatures instead of 1. And numbers are going to be important anyway, because 2 creatures can capture terrains 2 times as fast. 2 creatures can go in 2 diffrent directions.
But it needs playtesting.
Even with 1 square/hex per round, we can have unblockable/flying creatures. Flying creatures could coexist with most of enemy creatures on same square.
I'm not sure if you understood what I wrote about control zones, but minimum movement speed would be 1.
Hexes and stuff:
You mean display, right ? I already thought about this.
1. GCCG supports scaling images. (shift, or 3player games...)
2. We need a way to display even several cards on one square. My suggestion is that only card images would be visible (for "non-global" cards, cards that occupy hexes). Only card images and probably scaled down.
You could still hold down shift and see whole card in full size.
Basic combat rules summary (tile based):
I made slight modifications to combat system, tell me if you like it(I changed the way interception works):
1. Declare Attackers phase:
Attacking player chooses creatures that will be attacking this turn.
2. Choose Targets phase:
For each attacking creature, attacking player chooses a creature ADJACENT to it. If not intercepted, attacking and attacked creature deal damage to each other (later)
3. Interception Phase
Defending player may choose creatures which will be intercepting attacking creature.
Creature A can intercept attacking creature B if A and B are adjacent. (alternate: B can intercept if it's adjacent to attacked, not attacking, creature - but I don't quite like it. It would give defender too big advantage.)
4. Damage is dealt. If a creature is not intercepted, it deals damage to its chosen target.
If attacker is intercepted, it deals damage to intercepting creature.
Oh I had no Idea you were an official developer!
Anyways, I like your combat system better. The interception is an improvement.
About the speed: I still dont understand control zones as best as I should. Actually im somewhat opposed to the idea of "Capturing Terrain" but it's not my decision.
Hexes: If we can scale cards that would be a whole lot beter than the alternative (Stack cards on top of eachother).
I may be, but Avery Yen responded to only 3 or so of my @mails, and said almost nothing on this forum so far. I have no idea if he approves our ideas, and that makes me a bit uneasy.
By the way, you no doubt deserve some mention on that page for your contributions. I don't have access to it.
About Control Zones: you can download Battle for Wesnoth if you want. It's a free scenario-based strategy game. I was quite interested in it at one moment, but I don't like the way they extend their game. They just add tens of new units which differ very little, mostly in hp, damage, and number of attacks. Oh and graphics in style I don't like.
But I like the way Control Zones work there. Even with fast units battles are fairly tactical because of control zones. You can't just zip past an enemy and capture a village efforlessly. (Actually all that matters in the game is leveling up bunch of units, then using and keeping alive the same units scenario after scenario. Capturing villages and control is secondary at best. So much for strategy)
Terrain control: where do you think players should be able to summon creatures ?
1) On hexes determined at start of game
2) On hexes players control in some way
To be honest, I prefer 2). It's less monotonous, and situation can change dynamically. But I could live with 1.
If we use 2), players would be encouraged to hold strategic hexes. It's hard to predict right now where it would lead, but I think it's worth playtesting.
If we use 2, I still think there should be ways to summon creatures even on hexes you don't control, just a little harder. But available to all factions.
For example (idea loosely based on Master of Magic) Summoning Circle - an artifact. You could play creatures on Summoning Circle even if you don't control that hex right now (there could be some limitations, most obvious one: no summoning if an enemy creature is standing on Summing Circle)
I agree that option 2 (Summon creatures on hexes they have some controll over) would be cool. There must always be exceptions to the rule, like a summoning circle or what not, but i think it would be more challenging and fun to try to take controll of key areas inorder to summon there.
I suggest we somehow use the feature of "Buildings" with this somehow requiring players to summon creatures at points where they have built buildings. Just a thought.