Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 2:06 pm
Are you sure we can the use original artwork in 'official' Council endorsed cards?
Just when I put in the effort to collect extra copies of the unleasheds...
Individually printing/cutting/glueing takes alot of effort indeed. If there were a way to provide complete cards to everyone interested, that could make a great deal of difference.
Splitting up cards is a nice solution if it's possible, I agree, nobody wants unnecessary lengthy or complicated cards. But then there is the issue of the number of new cards to deal with. If cards are less complicated, does that mean the public's ability to absorb more of them increases?
I also agree that not all cards must lead players down a specific path. Like always there are utility cards, and there are mission cards, and we should strike a balance. For example Never Refuse, or Jambo's proposal for Know much about You, are excellent utility cards. However, it is not easy to invent creative, good utility cards, that aren't overpowered. Personally I think that that number is essentially much more limited than the number of mission-like cards, because you don't want to change the mechanism of the game too much either.
Since I recently spent alot of time designing my Arda cards I had struggled with using more Tarzan Talk ('me Tarzan you Jane') as well, or mathematical language as you call it. It is not only a matter of elegance that we haven't, so far. Same goes for the keywords. Meccg is much more complicated than other ccg's so often you need to use more precise wording to make it waterproof ruleswise. If you don't, the list of different constructions or keywords becomes very long. I don't think it matters that much that players have gotten used to the more exact/complete written phrases, and they can handle Tarzan talk, but using many different constructions or keywords will create too much confusion.
For example, there's 'cannot be duplicated', cannot be duplicated on a company, on a character, by a given player, in one turn...now for FotO it might be simple, but there would be like 4 different keywords needed to express this nuance.
Other ccg's also use more symbols. Some people might like it, I don't, my brain is more trained in words than in symbols.
btw. if you use less written words and more punctiation, you also use more hard returns, which increases the use of space on the card, so although it's more synoptic and clear, it doesn't usually save space, should that be an issue of concern.
@armory/swag: ok
@tower: nobody plays Shelob, it's about time they should? or, play her yourself. Also, tower players include many prowess bonus items/cards => dump Shelob, she's one of a kind. Pukel-men, those were guarding Dunharrow and used by the Woses to protect their families, so it's actually thematical nonsense to equate them to Silent Watcher, though I guess pukel-creature just means 'animated stones.' => skip them, nobody cares about Silent Watcher, until we invent a pukel-creature booster...
@black horse: these got 4 prowess to keep the RW in play, yet low body because at 7 RW would be discarded. So if we change prowess, I'd also up the body. => 2/7 warrior?
Just when I put in the effort to collect extra copies of the unleasheds...
Individually printing/cutting/glueing takes alot of effort indeed. If there were a way to provide complete cards to everyone interested, that could make a great deal of difference.
Splitting up cards is a nice solution if it's possible, I agree, nobody wants unnecessary lengthy or complicated cards. But then there is the issue of the number of new cards to deal with. If cards are less complicated, does that mean the public's ability to absorb more of them increases?
I also agree that not all cards must lead players down a specific path. Like always there are utility cards, and there are mission cards, and we should strike a balance. For example Never Refuse, or Jambo's proposal for Know much about You, are excellent utility cards. However, it is not easy to invent creative, good utility cards, that aren't overpowered. Personally I think that that number is essentially much more limited than the number of mission-like cards, because you don't want to change the mechanism of the game too much either.
Since I recently spent alot of time designing my Arda cards I had struggled with using more Tarzan Talk ('me Tarzan you Jane') as well, or mathematical language as you call it. It is not only a matter of elegance that we haven't, so far. Same goes for the keywords. Meccg is much more complicated than other ccg's so often you need to use more precise wording to make it waterproof ruleswise. If you don't, the list of different constructions or keywords becomes very long. I don't think it matters that much that players have gotten used to the more exact/complete written phrases, and they can handle Tarzan talk, but using many different constructions or keywords will create too much confusion.
For example, there's 'cannot be duplicated', cannot be duplicated on a company, on a character, by a given player, in one turn...now for FotO it might be simple, but there would be like 4 different keywords needed to express this nuance.
Other ccg's also use more symbols. Some people might like it, I don't, my brain is more trained in words than in symbols.
btw. if you use less written words and more punctiation, you also use more hard returns, which increases the use of space on the card, so although it's more synoptic and clear, it doesn't usually save space, should that be an issue of concern.
@armory/swag: ok
@tower: nobody plays Shelob, it's about time they should? or, play her yourself. Also, tower players include many prowess bonus items/cards => dump Shelob, she's one of a kind. Pukel-men, those were guarding Dunharrow and used by the Woses to protect their families, so it's actually thematical nonsense to equate them to Silent Watcher, though I guess pukel-creature just means 'animated stones.' => skip them, nobody cares about Silent Watcher, until we invent a pukel-creature booster...
@black horse: these got 4 prowess to keep the RW in play, yet low body because at 7 RW would be discarded. So if we change prowess, I'd also up the body. => 2/7 warrior?