Regarding VC2 and faction wars
-
Bandobras Took
- Rules Wizard
- Posts: 3109
- Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm
That's very true. Most people don't like to be forced to play a certain way (I think River proves this). I suppose I can always make dream cards . . .
GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR INTRODUCING NEW MECHANICS
I’m really impressed by the faction cards that Ben made. Somehow it never occurred to me that we could individualize factions by making v-versions of them that did cool things in faction battles. His thinking here definitely reflects the concept of “more story and character interaction” with these cards.
Still, I too am worried about reception of such a new mechanic into the game. Let me try to review some ideas regarding new mechanics in general before I come up with some possible options:
Re River: It’s true that people hate this card, even having ONE played on them. They don’t like the idea that they are forced to include rangers in their company. They’d rather make a resource strategy that THEY want without having to respond so much to possible hazards.
To a large extent, their response is silly, of course. They are at one end of the playing spectrum that is quite close to the “solitaire” style of player. This is the player who hates to interact with his opponent and hates to have cards played on his that he has to think about and deal with and just wants to play out his resource strategy and see if it can succeed.
But at the other end of the spectrum, the response is not silly if we apply it to other examples, for instance, Roadblock hazards. What can we learn from this? Perhaps the rule of thumb here should be that an introduced mechanic should a) not require too many cards for the resource player to competently deal with b) if anything, it might require a lot of strategic THINKING on the side of the resource player, but expert thinking should always beat up the need for lots of new cards shoved in the sb
It’s not just new card mechanics that people resent. Remember Fallen Wizards? People didn’t like the idea of having to deal with FWs in the tournament scene. People STILL don’t like the idea of having to bring “two decks” to deal with the hero AND minion alignment!
Which brings me to almost my last point. We are wondering how people would react to a new faction mechanic. But I want to ask is, how would people react if ICE came back and it was possible to introduce a *whole new set of physically published cards*, in booster packs and everything? I think some people would freak out. Because of course the new set would create **new mechanics** that must be dealt with. Think about Dark Minions, with underdeeps movement and prisoner-taking. Think about minion strategies like Malady decks. There will always be players that don’t want to have to forced to rethink their decks when a new set comes out.
So perhaps the real question we should be asking is, Do players even WANT to see a new set, virtual or otherwise, of MECCG cards?
(Especially casual players.)
I think at some point we’re going to have to draw a line in the sand, and say, look, for some people (those who don’t want to learn new rules or study new card strategies), the Virtual Sets are simply NOT for them. They can stick to playing “Standard” games. Even if we never release cards that introduce new mechanics, there will be people who won’t want to play with Virtual Cards because they won’t LIKE the idea that you can now enhance Ents, or Wolves, or whatever, because it means that they will now to examine these new cards to see how they affect their decks, and they don’t want to take the time to do that, so they’ll resent the fact that the cards are adding new powers that they feel excluded from not knowing about, so they will prefer if everyone else they played was on the same unenlightened level as them. Does this make sense?
Now the counterargument to everything I just said would be that some players are stuck in the middle. They don’t mind seeing new sets… heck, they even welcome them!… but they are a little scared or uncomfortable with seeing whole new, complicated strategies that they intuit might require hours of study.
I think that’s a reasonable argument. So our guiding principle, again, when creating new mechanics should probably fall close to what I mentioned earlier, that an introduced mechanic should A) not require too many cards for the resource player to competently deal with B) if anything, it might require a lot of strategic THINKING on the side of the resource player, but expert thinking should always beat up the need for lots of new cards shoved in the sb.
Even this principle will make it difficult for our Virtual Card Development Team to envision really big ideas. For example, I had always thought that the Virtual Cards could eventually include sets as diverse as Vastor’s Dwarf-lords expansion, or even more complicated, whole new minion alignments like playing a Dragon avatar. But would this fall too far under the umbrella of “changing the face of the game”, and therefore be something the community would resist about VCs? But then again, the Balrog expansion added a new avatar who was so powerful he has trumped the tournament scene ever since his introduction! Was his set therefore a mistake, or are the players who resent him to blame?
I don’t know. These are the biggest, most knotty issues our team will have to work out.
Re: Faction-battling
I envision that the key to adding this mechanic to the virtual set will be to follow the guiding principle indicated previously and make sure that a “middle of the spectrum” player can identify competent ways of dealing with the strategy. Here is something to consider: if we can design the faction-battling mechanic elegantly enough, we can make it so that the true battles and heroic fighting will only occur **if the other player** has also embraced faction-battling as part of his strategy. The thing to balance, of course, is that we want a player who has dedicated part of his strategy to this to still have something to do against a player who has not considered it at all. (This is where the “minor reward for winning” part could come in.)
Re: Wizard Spell-cast duels
It was certainly not Mark’s and my intention that a defensive player would have to pack many spells in his or her deck to deal with this new mechanic strategy. In keeping with the new mechanic “guiding principle”, I see two ways that we can address spell dueling. The first is to give the defensive player an option among the cards that he will ALREADY have in his deck. For example, instead of discarding spells to add to the duel roll, the defensive player could discard marshalling point cards. That would be interesting! The second is to make the reward for winning the wizard-duel not very game-breaking at all, but just a decent prize for the offensive player who went through the work to try to do it. Even if we went this route, there should still be a way for the defensive player to attempt to deal with the strategy, so that it remains interactive. That way might be as simple as the way any player deals with “chase decks”—figure out way to tap out (or hurt) the person who is chasing you!
--Frodo
I’m really impressed by the faction cards that Ben made. Somehow it never occurred to me that we could individualize factions by making v-versions of them that did cool things in faction battles. His thinking here definitely reflects the concept of “more story and character interaction” with these cards.
Still, I too am worried about reception of such a new mechanic into the game. Let me try to review some ideas regarding new mechanics in general before I come up with some possible options:
Re River: It’s true that people hate this card, even having ONE played on them. They don’t like the idea that they are forced to include rangers in their company. They’d rather make a resource strategy that THEY want without having to respond so much to possible hazards.
To a large extent, their response is silly, of course. They are at one end of the playing spectrum that is quite close to the “solitaire” style of player. This is the player who hates to interact with his opponent and hates to have cards played on his that he has to think about and deal with and just wants to play out his resource strategy and see if it can succeed.
But at the other end of the spectrum, the response is not silly if we apply it to other examples, for instance, Roadblock hazards. What can we learn from this? Perhaps the rule of thumb here should be that an introduced mechanic should a) not require too many cards for the resource player to competently deal with b) if anything, it might require a lot of strategic THINKING on the side of the resource player, but expert thinking should always beat up the need for lots of new cards shoved in the sb
It’s not just new card mechanics that people resent. Remember Fallen Wizards? People didn’t like the idea of having to deal with FWs in the tournament scene. People STILL don’t like the idea of having to bring “two decks” to deal with the hero AND minion alignment!
Which brings me to almost my last point. We are wondering how people would react to a new faction mechanic. But I want to ask is, how would people react if ICE came back and it was possible to introduce a *whole new set of physically published cards*, in booster packs and everything? I think some people would freak out. Because of course the new set would create **new mechanics** that must be dealt with. Think about Dark Minions, with underdeeps movement and prisoner-taking. Think about minion strategies like Malady decks. There will always be players that don’t want to have to forced to rethink their decks when a new set comes out.
So perhaps the real question we should be asking is, Do players even WANT to see a new set, virtual or otherwise, of MECCG cards?
(Especially casual players.)
I think at some point we’re going to have to draw a line in the sand, and say, look, for some people (those who don’t want to learn new rules or study new card strategies), the Virtual Sets are simply NOT for them. They can stick to playing “Standard” games. Even if we never release cards that introduce new mechanics, there will be people who won’t want to play with Virtual Cards because they won’t LIKE the idea that you can now enhance Ents, or Wolves, or whatever, because it means that they will now to examine these new cards to see how they affect their decks, and they don’t want to take the time to do that, so they’ll resent the fact that the cards are adding new powers that they feel excluded from not knowing about, so they will prefer if everyone else they played was on the same unenlightened level as them. Does this make sense?
Now the counterargument to everything I just said would be that some players are stuck in the middle. They don’t mind seeing new sets… heck, they even welcome them!… but they are a little scared or uncomfortable with seeing whole new, complicated strategies that they intuit might require hours of study.
I think that’s a reasonable argument. So our guiding principle, again, when creating new mechanics should probably fall close to what I mentioned earlier, that an introduced mechanic should A) not require too many cards for the resource player to competently deal with B) if anything, it might require a lot of strategic THINKING on the side of the resource player, but expert thinking should always beat up the need for lots of new cards shoved in the sb.
Even this principle will make it difficult for our Virtual Card Development Team to envision really big ideas. For example, I had always thought that the Virtual Cards could eventually include sets as diverse as Vastor’s Dwarf-lords expansion, or even more complicated, whole new minion alignments like playing a Dragon avatar. But would this fall too far under the umbrella of “changing the face of the game”, and therefore be something the community would resist about VCs? But then again, the Balrog expansion added a new avatar who was so powerful he has trumped the tournament scene ever since his introduction! Was his set therefore a mistake, or are the players who resent him to blame?
I don’t know. These are the biggest, most knotty issues our team will have to work out.
Re: Faction-battling
I envision that the key to adding this mechanic to the virtual set will be to follow the guiding principle indicated previously and make sure that a “middle of the spectrum” player can identify competent ways of dealing with the strategy. Here is something to consider: if we can design the faction-battling mechanic elegantly enough, we can make it so that the true battles and heroic fighting will only occur **if the other player** has also embraced faction-battling as part of his strategy. The thing to balance, of course, is that we want a player who has dedicated part of his strategy to this to still have something to do against a player who has not considered it at all. (This is where the “minor reward for winning” part could come in.)
Re: Wizard Spell-cast duels
It was certainly not Mark’s and my intention that a defensive player would have to pack many spells in his or her deck to deal with this new mechanic strategy. In keeping with the new mechanic “guiding principle”, I see two ways that we can address spell dueling. The first is to give the defensive player an option among the cards that he will ALREADY have in his deck. For example, instead of discarding spells to add to the duel roll, the defensive player could discard marshalling point cards. That would be interesting! The second is to make the reward for winning the wizard-duel not very game-breaking at all, but just a decent prize for the offensive player who went through the work to try to do it. Even if we went this route, there should still be a way for the defensive player to attempt to deal with the strategy, so that it remains interactive. That way might be as simple as the way any player deals with “chase decks”—figure out way to tap out (or hurt) the person who is chasing you!
--Frodo
Okay, this post will examine more the ideas presented regarding Faction battles. I think Ben came up with some wonderful ideas. But I also think Boder Hamster presented some interesting, not quite as game-changing ideas about how we can use Factions. Like with any hard and complicated choice, we need to think about our options (possible combining some), and figure out what would work best for our audience.
OPTION 1) FACTION CREATES REGULAR ATTACKS (Not “Faction Battles”)
Boder suggested:
Playable on a faction in play. All opponents companies who move through the region where the faction is playable and regions next to it when gates of morning in play must face a detainment attack equal to with the factions MPs plus a roll.
This sounds very similar to Trouble On All Borders. In fact, I will call this the “Trouble on All Borders” method of faction-battling… it doesn’t really introduce new mechanics, just bolsters the ones that are already in existence. However, Boder said that if we allow the above factions to MOVE, this attacking mechanic becomes much more useful. Hmm. That’s true. And it would keep the beautiful region-card movement idea, which I like. It’s worth considering.
OPTION 2) FACTION-AS-ALLY METHOD (Faces Creature Attacks)
Boder suggested:
Playable on a faction in play. Attach it to one of your warriors. The faction faces the first attack against this company each movement/hazard phase.
This is a more original idea than Option 1, but not too game-changing, I think.
OPTION 3) FACTION-AS-REGION HELPER (Faces Creature Attacks)
My suggestion (though someone may have once posted this):
Playable on a faction in play. If your company moves through a region containing this faction, the faction faces the first attack against this company each movement/hazard phase.
OPTION 4) FACTION AS NEW ENTITY FOR FACTION-BATTLES (Fights Other Factions Only)
See Virtual Grond, Alliance of Free Peoples, etc.
This is the most original idea. It is also the most POTENTIALLY game-changing. I say potentially, because I think we were already thinking about how to limit the amount of damage these battles could do—for example, not allowing factions to “kill” the opponent’s sole source of marshalling point.
Okay, I think I thought of all the options—or did I miss any?
Note that I still think Ben’s idea (which of course is on the other side of the spectrum: a whole new set of faction cards) is possible. But it could only be possible if the opponent could DEAL WITH the faction strategy WITHOUT having to add many (or any!) SB cards, and/or if the successful battling strategy did not seriously hurt the player’s resource strategy, providing that he played the game well. Does this make sense? Because many of Ben’s suggestions are just cards for the excited virtual cards players to think about—what dragon to I add? How do I pump up Boromir’s DI? But if we can balance the actual faction battling interaction so that the RESULTS are not game-changing, it doesn’t matter how many fancy new virtual cards there are, vanilla players will still be able to deal with the strategy.
p.s. This is very important: Of course the strategy must still reward the faction-battling resource player who goes through the effort of inserting these cards. One way to do this is to focus the strategy more on awarding positive MPs to the player, rather the awarding them by STRIPPING AWAY marshalling points from the opponent. In this respect the strategy CAN be less interactive if necessary; the player will instead be competing against his own deck. This is very similar to a “King Under the Mountain” Strategy! You are putting YOUR OWN Dragon Ahomes in your deck to kill. Your opponent CAN try to stop you, but does not feel REQUIRED to have a Dragon strategy to compete with you. Of course, we will (ideally) want a strategy that CAN be more interactive with the opponent when necessary than KutM. Still, maybe the King Under the Mountain strategy can be something for us to hold in our heads as we consider this mechanic?
Frodo
OPTION 1) FACTION CREATES REGULAR ATTACKS (Not “Faction Battles”)
Boder suggested:
Playable on a faction in play. All opponents companies who move through the region where the faction is playable and regions next to it when gates of morning in play must face a detainment attack equal to with the factions MPs plus a roll.
This sounds very similar to Trouble On All Borders. In fact, I will call this the “Trouble on All Borders” method of faction-battling… it doesn’t really introduce new mechanics, just bolsters the ones that are already in existence. However, Boder said that if we allow the above factions to MOVE, this attacking mechanic becomes much more useful. Hmm. That’s true. And it would keep the beautiful region-card movement idea, which I like. It’s worth considering.
OPTION 2) FACTION-AS-ALLY METHOD (Faces Creature Attacks)
Boder suggested:
Playable on a faction in play. Attach it to one of your warriors. The faction faces the first attack against this company each movement/hazard phase.
This is a more original idea than Option 1, but not too game-changing, I think.
OPTION 3) FACTION-AS-REGION HELPER (Faces Creature Attacks)
My suggestion (though someone may have once posted this):
Playable on a faction in play. If your company moves through a region containing this faction, the faction faces the first attack against this company each movement/hazard phase.
OPTION 4) FACTION AS NEW ENTITY FOR FACTION-BATTLES (Fights Other Factions Only)
See Virtual Grond, Alliance of Free Peoples, etc.
This is the most original idea. It is also the most POTENTIALLY game-changing. I say potentially, because I think we were already thinking about how to limit the amount of damage these battles could do—for example, not allowing factions to “kill” the opponent’s sole source of marshalling point.
Okay, I think I thought of all the options—or did I miss any?
Note that I still think Ben’s idea (which of course is on the other side of the spectrum: a whole new set of faction cards) is possible. But it could only be possible if the opponent could DEAL WITH the faction strategy WITHOUT having to add many (or any!) SB cards, and/or if the successful battling strategy did not seriously hurt the player’s resource strategy, providing that he played the game well. Does this make sense? Because many of Ben’s suggestions are just cards for the excited virtual cards players to think about—what dragon to I add? How do I pump up Boromir’s DI? But if we can balance the actual faction battling interaction so that the RESULTS are not game-changing, it doesn’t matter how many fancy new virtual cards there are, vanilla players will still be able to deal with the strategy.
p.s. This is very important: Of course the strategy must still reward the faction-battling resource player who goes through the effort of inserting these cards. One way to do this is to focus the strategy more on awarding positive MPs to the player, rather the awarding them by STRIPPING AWAY marshalling points from the opponent. In this respect the strategy CAN be less interactive if necessary; the player will instead be competing against his own deck. This is very similar to a “King Under the Mountain” Strategy! You are putting YOUR OWN Dragon Ahomes in your deck to kill. Your opponent CAN try to stop you, but does not feel REQUIRED to have a Dragon strategy to compete with you. Of course, we will (ideally) want a strategy that CAN be more interactive with the opponent when necessary than KutM. Still, maybe the King Under the Mountain strategy can be something for us to hold in our heads as we consider this mechanic?
Frodo
-
Bandobras Took
- Rules Wizard
- Posts: 3109
- Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm
No time for an in-depth response, but one point:
Every time new mechanics/strategies were introduced, the sideboard size increased.
Perhaps a 5 or 10-card Virtual sideboard, only to be used if certain cards enter play?
For example, simply add to the faction battling cards, "Opponent may access his virtual sideboard." This would mean that your opponent gains access to helper cards, but you would be unable to access similar cards from your virtual sideboard unless your opponent plays his corresponding resource that allows you access to yours.
This keeps the initiative with the faction-battler, but he will have to put his helper cards directly in the deck, while the defensive player need not worry about them unless his opponent has decided. This could also potentially work with magic duel cards.
The precedent, of course, is the White Hand set, where enough new mechanics were introduced that a separate "anti-FW" sideboard was introduced.
Every time new mechanics/strategies were introduced, the sideboard size increased.
Perhaps a 5 or 10-card Virtual sideboard, only to be used if certain cards enter play?
For example, simply add to the faction battling cards, "Opponent may access his virtual sideboard." This would mean that your opponent gains access to helper cards, but you would be unable to access similar cards from your virtual sideboard unless your opponent plays his corresponding resource that allows you access to yours.
This keeps the initiative with the faction-battler, but he will have to put his helper cards directly in the deck, while the defensive player need not worry about them unless his opponent has decided. This could also potentially work with magic duel cards.
The precedent, of course, is the White Hand set, where enough new mechanics were introduced that a separate "anti-FW" sideboard was introduced.
-
Ringbearer
- Ex Council Member
- Posts: 474
- Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 3:39 pm
I dont agree with Took here. I dont think we help the game with sb after sb... next we get a Sb for dragons, and Sb for this, and for that... eventualy we would require 10 extra sideboards to face different strategies. I am not a fan of that at all.
"I used to roll the dice, feel the fear in my enemies eyes."
- Coldplay, Viva la Vida.
Gaming is life, the rest is just dice rolls.
- John Kovalic, Dork Tower
- Coldplay, Viva la Vida.
Gaming is life, the rest is just dice rolls.
- John Kovalic, Dork Tower
I agree with Ringbearer, and I would also like to point out that bigger is not always better. Maybe one of the resounding reasons MeCCG has faired so well over the years has been because of its comparatively small card set? People can become active again, pick up their old decks and have fun.
I still think that new game concepts which can't intrinsically exist within the confines of the default cards will lead to a separation. VCs then become like one of the many Dreamcard Mods to be played. You then move from being a rather neat and cool add-on, fully inter-playable with the default cards, to something that requires special attention and special deck construction.
Although MeCCG still thrives in its own little microcosm, the number of active players at any one time is usually quite small. Therefore, in my mind, keeping it integrated is an important aspect. When I log in to GCCG, I'd like to think regular players who're not as interested in VCs might still be willing to play their default decks against my VC decks. Introducing major new game concepts will kill that flexibility stone dead. Players that are middle of the road are rather forced to pick sides. Do they design decks for default or for VCs and any existing decks they've created have to be adjusted. The game with VCs might cease to become an easy pastime for some. So you may find a lot of players just opt out altogether, leaving VCs in an even smaller niche.
So, my advice is either to leave major gameplay concepts for Dreamcards or Mods, or if you do want to include them in the style of virtual cards, develop them in a way as to ensure each new VC set is entirely devoted to an individual concept. VC-faction, or VC-avatar, say. Then people can more easily adopt or decide not to, without breaking the necessary link between playing default decks against VC decks.
Regards
I still think that new game concepts which can't intrinsically exist within the confines of the default cards will lead to a separation. VCs then become like one of the many Dreamcard Mods to be played. You then move from being a rather neat and cool add-on, fully inter-playable with the default cards, to something that requires special attention and special deck construction.
Although MeCCG still thrives in its own little microcosm, the number of active players at any one time is usually quite small. Therefore, in my mind, keeping it integrated is an important aspect. When I log in to GCCG, I'd like to think regular players who're not as interested in VCs might still be willing to play their default decks against my VC decks. Introducing major new game concepts will kill that flexibility stone dead. Players that are middle of the road are rather forced to pick sides. Do they design decks for default or for VCs and any existing decks they've created have to be adjusted. The game with VCs might cease to become an easy pastime for some. So you may find a lot of players just opt out altogether, leaving VCs in an even smaller niche.
So, my advice is either to leave major gameplay concepts for Dreamcards or Mods, or if you do want to include them in the style of virtual cards, develop them in a way as to ensure each new VC set is entirely devoted to an individual concept. VC-faction, or VC-avatar, say. Then people can more easily adopt or decide not to, without breaking the necessary link between playing default decks against VC decks.
Regards
-
Bandobras Took
- Rules Wizard
- Posts: 3109
- Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm
I'm easy, either way. I can see both sides. I'd rather see full-blown faction battling than some sort of gimped compromise; it seems better to avoid it entirely than a halfway measure that doesn't satisfy a fan's innate urge to reenact Helm's Deep.
For me V-games are just a different way to play MECCG, like scenarios or special tourneys such as Hero 1-deck for instance. A V-tourney could be a nice side-event, as it was in last Worlds. But it's unlikely to play a V-deck against an opponent who doesn't play a V-deck too... he could agree to play anyway, but if he doesn't know the V-cards and how they work... furthermore, it's pointless to play a V-tourney without a V-deck: you still could do it, but what for?
I really like Ben's faction-battling as it is, as a whole, in a way where both players include it in their decks and know how it works, in the same way we must design a proper deck and we must know special rules from a given scenario before playing it.
I really like Ben's faction-battling as it is, as a whole, in a way where both players include it in their decks and know how it works, in the same way we must design a proper deck and we must know special rules from a given scenario before playing it.
__
Let them come! There is one dwarf yet in Moria that still draws breath!
Let them come! There is one dwarf yet in Moria that still draws breath!
What I'd really love to see one of these days is tourney that's basically a bring whatever you like! That being normal and v-cards and allowed in any combination with no restrictions. See how they impact on the meta-game. Ultimately, the biggest test of v-cards in their current form is how they might interact with normal style decks. Opening up the playing field, rather than closing doors. At a v-card tourney for instance, there's guaranteed going to be someone with Awakened plants (my money's on MarcosBalin wrote:For me V-games are just a different way to play MECCG, like scenarios or special tourneys such as Hero 1-deck for instance. A V-tourney could be a nice side-event, as it was in last Worlds. But it's unlikely to play a V-deck against an opponent who doesn't play a V-deck too... he could agree to play anyway, but if he doesn't know the V-cards and how they work... furthermore, it's pointless to play a V-tourney without a V-deck: you still could do it, but what for?
I really like Ben's faction-battling as it is, as a whole, in a way where both players include it in their decks and know how it works, in the same way we must design a proper deck and we must know special rules from a given scenario before playing it.
), someone with a Nazgul deck and someone making use of the Great Goblin. People will naturally be designing their resource portions with these very much in mind! Having said all that, there's no doubting Ben's ideas for expanding are superb, and somewhere along the way I'd love to try faction/avatar battling. With those cards a special sideboard would be essential, if only to allow the new concept to properly take shape. If you're not going faction heavy, then still being able to defend against one that does should be paramount.
Oh, and Ben, I didn't think up the auto-sideboarding thing. There are Balrog cards which already do this, but such a mechanism would be essential for new game concepts to be able to work.
-
Nerdmeetsyou
- Posts: 667
- Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 6:30 pm
The greath idear of the V-Cards should be the same like in starwars...
they should become overall acceptet..
and should be a new additon to the game....
OUR GREATHEST GOAL SHOULD BE TO MAKE THEM ACCEPTED FOR WORLDS!!!!
THEY SHOULDN't defenitly not be handled like some kind of scenario game...
This should never be our intention!!!!
That's why we shouldn't make too drastic changes.... mostly in the beginning...
not to scare the other players away from this new opportunity to enhace and evolve the game!!!!
they should become overall acceptet..
and should be a new additon to the game....
OUR GREATHEST GOAL SHOULD BE TO MAKE THEM ACCEPTED FOR WORLDS!!!!
THEY SHOULDN't defenitly not be handled like some kind of scenario game...
This should never be our intention!!!!
That's why we shouldn't make too drastic changes.... mostly in the beginning...
not to scare the other players away from this new opportunity to enhace and evolve the game!!!!
i agree with boder in that 
but i need some playtesters, anybody up for some games? hehe
i already have one, lolAt a v-card tourney for instance, there's guaranteed going to be someone with Awakened plants (my money's on Marcos
but i need some playtesters, anybody up for some games? hehe
-
Nerdmeetsyou
- Posts: 667
- Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 6:30 pm
And here is some other very important point for your faction war lovers:
THERE IS STILL A CHANCE TO GET THEM INTO THE GAME IN SOME WAY!
but IF we do it. We have to do it later, to make it work!
the people must first earn trust in us... so they will accept changes if we make them....
So if our first and 2nd set is accepted an well known... we can start thinking about things like that!
THERE IS STILL A CHANCE TO GET THEM INTO THE GAME IN SOME WAY!
but IF we do it. We have to do it later, to make it work!
the people must first earn trust in us... so they will accept changes if we make them....
So if our first and 2nd set is accepted an well known... we can start thinking about things like that!
Ok, if you all agree I'll try to help anyway, as I said I really like this faction-battling thing. But it will be hard to introduce it to players who don't want major changes in our game.
__
Let them come! There is one dwarf yet in Moria that still draws breath!
Let them come! There is one dwarf yet in Moria that still draws breath!
-
Nerdmeetsyou
- Posts: 667
- Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 6:30 pm
maybe we can introduce some EXTRA V-cards later...
that are called BATTLING OF THE FORCES
or something like that...
that are sperate from the other ones!!!!
some which are optional... and can be used for some extra scenario game...
where you have faction battle... and card intensive Avatar battles!
that are called BATTLING OF THE FORCES
or something like that...
that are sperate from the other ones!!!!
some which are optional... and can be used for some extra scenario game...
where you have faction battle... and card intensive Avatar battles!
-
Thorsten the Traveller
- Ex Council Chairman
- Posts: 1764
- Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:44 pm
- Location: Tilburg, Netherlands
I agree with Frodo's analysis basically. Introducing new stuff requires certain sensitivity towards the environment obviously, but it shouldn't paralyze you either in daring new things. I don't know how ambitious the plan should be ultimately, if like Jambo says you should strive for V's to become that widely accepted that V's are generally tournament-legal. For that to happen, perhaps too many concessions have to be made. On the other hand, if the cards are very good, balanced, adding flavour, playable by most players without mayor efforts, then it's possible. Obviously that would be everybody's dream.
So some people don't like change: bummer. Another thing of course is, wether a new mechanism kind of forces you to deal with it in your deck-design. The comparison with FW/Balrog introduction is a poor one I think. Sure, there are new cards and strategies, but if my original deck was good, I could still play it against FW or Balrog without many problems (of course meta-game still changed somewhat). But with the former proposals for avatar/faction battles, I would find myself in a pickle not designing my deck to include spells or strong factions.
So, is it impossible to find a balance between introducing an exiting new mechanism and not overstretching the average player's energy and interest? Rereading the faction-battle post at this section, because it was all too long ago, I found that Tythis' proposal actually seemed to work for me.
alliance/grond V: Tythis wrote
There are other ways to tone down the power of battling a bit. Personally I'm against factions moving by itself, unless they're dragons. Factions need leaders, you don't have Hobbits going on their own to Mordor to kill some Ungol-Orcs, fun as it might seem. If we introduce leaders leading the factions to an opponent's faction, then you could for instance kill the leader and the faction would disperse (i.e. return to a site or mp pile).
Frodo suggests 4 different scenario's. I actually like them all, and wonder why we wouldn't combine them. Perhaps that way you can introduce a whole scala of opportunities for factions with only 3 or 4 cards, each one in itself a small new mechanism, none of them overpowered.
1) Faction as ally and faction as Battling Entity. [2 and 4] Factions may be placed with a leader. I suggest someone of same race (or avatar), and a decent mind. Warrior skill not necessary. If so placed they may move. Factions can fight creatures or other factions, but if they loose, they loose one MP. If leader leaves play, faction returns to mp pile. Thus, you can weaken factions by playing hazards. To initiate battles this way you basically need 2 cards only: a leader card, and a battle card. You could start the game with the leader card, you can have multiple leaders in a company.
2) Faction as Helper and Trouble on all Borders.[/b] [3 and 1] If a creature is played on a region by name where you have played a faction, or at the site where it was played, the faction may come to your aid. If opponent of different alignment moves through this region he faces an attack. That's another card, if you can fit it on one, or otherwise two (see no problem with these two abilities on one card actually) - but ToAB already exists after all. If faction looses, you loose 1 MP, same here. If faction only worth 1 MP, it can't help you.
So, there's a double edged sword involved, if you play a faction to battle with it or help you, opponent can do something about it through the normal mechanisms of the game, i.e. he can play creatures on it, can destroy the leader one way or the other, can actively set out to defeat the attack by moving through that region and this way take some mp's from opponent, like with the Dragon ahunts.
Question is, can this be viably done without faction helper cards, and to anyone's concept of what's fun? Many people here might not like the drawbacks of the leader concept as it means designing your deck towards the faction-battling purposes, seriously hampering the possibilities of battling. Also it's more dangerous for factions if they move with a company. And on the other hand, playing a concealment on a company with a faction is strange too. We could make the ally ability optional, or give all factions warrior-ability to help them survive attacks.
But, if it can be done, then I think you only need 3 cards, and you can either choose which part for your faction to play, if any. Then I don't see the need for anti-faction battling hazards either. You either try to defeat it with your faction or with creatures, you kill/influence/corrupt the leader, you stay away from certain regions, or you choose to ignore it altogether and take a possible 2 MP net. loss per turn.
Of course, specific helpers can still be designed for fun. Or for scenario's, like Boder suggests.
So some people don't like change: bummer. Another thing of course is, wether a new mechanism kind of forces you to deal with it in your deck-design. The comparison with FW/Balrog introduction is a poor one I think. Sure, there are new cards and strategies, but if my original deck was good, I could still play it against FW or Balrog without many problems (of course meta-game still changed somewhat). But with the former proposals for avatar/faction battles, I would find myself in a pickle not designing my deck to include spells or strong factions.
So, is it impossible to find a balance between introducing an exiting new mechanism and not overstretching the average player's energy and interest? Rereading the faction-battle post at this section, because it was all too long ago, I found that Tythis' proposal actually seemed to work for me.
alliance/grond V: Tythis wrote
There wasn't much response to this proposal, why not? Because it toned down the battling too much? Not creative enough in its effects? We can discuss details, - I don't like the stand alone movement, I'd like to limit any battling to once per turn - but in general, if you allow factions to battle to a maximum effect of a net 2MP gain/loss per turn, that doesn't seem overpowered to me. And you only need this card for it, basically.[-]...during either player's end-of-turn phase, [-], the resource player may initiate a battle between all factions of an opposing alignment in the same region (FW are always counted as opposing for this card). You and opponent roll and add the total faction MPs in that region to the roll (side with Army of the Dead automatically wins). Winner causes a faction of their choice in that region to be worth -1 MP to a minimum of 1. This card is worth 1 MP for each such battle won by the controller of this card. Factions worth 1 MP or reduced to 1 MP may not initiate battle, but may still participate otherwise. This card may be discarded during the organization phase.
There are other ways to tone down the power of battling a bit. Personally I'm against factions moving by itself, unless they're dragons. Factions need leaders, you don't have Hobbits going on their own to Mordor to kill some Ungol-Orcs, fun as it might seem. If we introduce leaders leading the factions to an opponent's faction, then you could for instance kill the leader and the faction would disperse (i.e. return to a site or mp pile).
Frodo suggests 4 different scenario's. I actually like them all, and wonder why we wouldn't combine them. Perhaps that way you can introduce a whole scala of opportunities for factions with only 3 or 4 cards, each one in itself a small new mechanism, none of them overpowered.
1) Faction as ally and faction as Battling Entity. [2 and 4] Factions may be placed with a leader. I suggest someone of same race (or avatar), and a decent mind. Warrior skill not necessary. If so placed they may move. Factions can fight creatures or other factions, but if they loose, they loose one MP. If leader leaves play, faction returns to mp pile. Thus, you can weaken factions by playing hazards. To initiate battles this way you basically need 2 cards only: a leader card, and a battle card. You could start the game with the leader card, you can have multiple leaders in a company.
2) Faction as Helper and Trouble on all Borders.[/b] [3 and 1] If a creature is played on a region by name where you have played a faction, or at the site where it was played, the faction may come to your aid. If opponent of different alignment moves through this region he faces an attack. That's another card, if you can fit it on one, or otherwise two (see no problem with these two abilities on one card actually) - but ToAB already exists after all. If faction looses, you loose 1 MP, same here. If faction only worth 1 MP, it can't help you.
So, there's a double edged sword involved, if you play a faction to battle with it or help you, opponent can do something about it through the normal mechanisms of the game, i.e. he can play creatures on it, can destroy the leader one way or the other, can actively set out to defeat the attack by moving through that region and this way take some mp's from opponent, like with the Dragon ahunts.
Question is, can this be viably done without faction helper cards, and to anyone's concept of what's fun? Many people here might not like the drawbacks of the leader concept as it means designing your deck towards the faction-battling purposes, seriously hampering the possibilities of battling. Also it's more dangerous for factions if they move with a company. And on the other hand, playing a concealment on a company with a faction is strange too. We could make the ally ability optional, or give all factions warrior-ability to help them survive attacks.
But, if it can be done, then I think you only need 3 cards, and you can either choose which part for your faction to play, if any. Then I don't see the need for anti-faction battling hazards either. You either try to defeat it with your faction or with creatures, you kill/influence/corrupt the leader, you stay away from certain regions, or you choose to ignore it altogether and take a possible 2 MP net. loss per turn.
Of course, specific helpers can still be designed for fun. Or for scenario's, like Boder suggests.
Stone-age did not end because man ran out of rocks.