LackeyCCG

Project WTactics aims to become a great open source legal community ran customizable cardgame (ccg). We already have excellent looking artwork. "All we need" is somebody to figure out a good ruleset for the game...

Is that you? Do you have the mind that's required to create a strategical yet easy to play CCG? Great! Head over to >> http://WTactics.org

Read the FAQ and everything else on there, and drop questions in here or via e-mail.

(http://chaosrealm.net/wtactics/wp-content/2010/04/peace.png)

Please notice: The card is a mock-up and a work copy. It would of course look differently if you developed the rules - what text/values and how many etc you use is up to you.

What are you waiting for? Contact us already. Only way to make this happen is by doing it yourself. ;)

it is hard to make rules. ocne you make the rules wont you already have a big part of the game. i dont understand, are you going to be on hire

dont have it a m:tg knockoff. youv already put down stats and things, thats silly. i get a tabletop rpg feel from it. make it less like m:tg and more like l5r or agot in theme and feel, tryign to correct politics and influence things rather than beating up someone in a duel. i will give a write up of what i mean in another post. modifying this one would make it rather hard to follow

if you want could you give more examples of varying card art? like elves, whatever other races, whatever other jobs, maybe art for non-creature stuff, locations if you made those and suchlike?

Quoteocne you make the rules wont you already have a big part of the game.

Yes, you would. Actually, I personally would go as far as saying that the rules are the single most important aspect of a game, at least from my own viewpoint. (Then we ofc have a lot of other things surrounding them, adding all these ingredients will = "the game")

That's also exactly why I posted here - to let whoever is intersted in game development actually develop something.

Quote
i dont understand, are you going to be on hire

Nobody hires me, and I will hire nobody: It's a GPL project, eveything in it is free - the game is free.

Quote
dont have it a m:tg knockoff. youv already put down stats and things, thats silly. i get a tabletop rpg feel from it. make it less like m:tg and more like l5r or agot in theme and feel, tryign to correct politics and influence things rather than beating up someone in a duel

The picture is a mock-up and a work copy. It would of course look differently if you or somebody else developed the rules - what text and values you use is up to you. (I will add this info under the image, thanks for pointing this out).

Quotei will give a write up of what i mean in another post. modifying this one would make it rather hard to follow

As it's explained on the website you don't have to modify anything at all if you don't feel like it: It's almost even better if you write your own rules from scratch instead. However, please read the FAQ and the design goals before doing so.

if you want could you give more examples of varying card art? like elves, whatever other races, whatever other jobs, maybe art for non-creature stuff, locations if you made those and suchlike?

i meant modifying the post i had put, the rules and themes and stuff would come in a separate message. separate from this too

i ask about the images because iv now looked at the site and the faq and the little side part that updates with images everytime i visit a page.... i havent seen a single non-character card show up. iv also not seen anything that isnt an elf or dwarf. does artwork for them/adaptable for them exist? or are there only elven/dwarven characters available to make? because the faq also says that the cards should use all or close to all of the card art so if all the artwork is of creatures, then it might be hard to create non-creature cards out of those

• All card art can be downloaded from our site. That way you can actually preview it all. :)
  
• All artwork is coherent and in a fantasy setting, and of creatures, and creatures only. (It still enables you to use different card types if needed...)
• Most of the work is of different classes of humans.
• Except for humans there are also: Dragons, lizzard-like-creatures, undead, goblins, elfs, dwarfs and others.
• Factions/teams (if you use them) in the game will need to be of mixed species, even if some would have a majority of a certain specie. This is due to our art situation and what we have available, but it should present no problem.
• All artwork of the creatures have transparent background.
• Eveything that has to do with the card template can easily be changed - it's done in vector format.

My msn >> subcodes at hotmail dot com
My jabber/google talk >> eyerouge at gmail dot com

wow..... this is going to be very hard to not make it combat based

i prefer tlaking in a public setting. could we use the lackey shoutbox or some other public room? that way if other ppl want to join in they can

Yups, meet you in there.

I don't mean to promote another game website but since your looking for some rules you could try out something similar to :

http://www.alteil.com/ (http://www.alteil.com/)

It's just the first thing it reminded me of when i saw the cards. :-\

Quote from: magekirbys on March 08, 2010, 03:50:26 AM
I don't mean to promote another game website but since your looking for some rules you could try out something similar to :

http://www.alteil.com/ (http://www.alteil.com/)

It's just the first thing it reminded me of when i saw the cards. :-\

You're welcome to use any other game as a base if you wish to do so. (That said, keep in mind that most digital ccg:s have heavy and automated administration that would be very tedious and crappy to perform in a physical/paper game.)  I don't know the specific rules of the game you linked to but would love seeing your work based on it. :)

The text/pictures/races are looking a lot like it is based off of wesnoth.
Example: This is a portrait for one of the characters...Notice the similarities.
Which came first?

[attachment deleted by admin]

in the site he had as a link in the starting post, http://www.chaosrealm.net/wtactics/ , it says that its based on battle of wesnoth. thats what the w stands for in wtactics

Quote from: sneaselx on March 08, 2010, 05:52:06 AM
The text/pictures/races are looking a lot like it is based off of wesnoth.
Example: This is a portrait for one of the characters...Notice the similarities.
Which came first?

As it's described both in the Credits and FAQ-pages, we legally use graphics that were originally drawn for BfW. However, to be exact, first BfW was created, and then the first versions of the graphics it used, and just recently BfW got new great looking graphics, which we now use in WTactics.

Of pure curiosity - how is the order of what came first relevant? (Asking so I can update the FAQ in case it's a good point...)

Yeah, I just didn't read the website.

I've hired an artist as a result of a discussion in here :P Here are some sample & work copies of the new original art work for the game:  Please don't comment mechanics & wording as these are mere samples.

(http://chaosrealm.net/wtactics/wp-content/2010/05/wt_by_love_card.png)
(http://chaosrealm.net/wtactics/wp-content/2010/04/peace.png)
(http://chaosrealm.net/wtactics/wp-content/2010/06/wt_take_from_the_rich_card.png)


Developers are wanted and needed. :)

I'm not sure why you're getting so much crap for posting GPL art and templates and saying "hey, make a game out of this."
If one does not like the layout, they should probably just make a different game.
That being said, I like the layouts, and I like Tactics in games, and it looks like these templates wouldn't have to be edited that heavily in order to get a good game out of it.
And with THAT being said, I'm really sick right now, so trying to come up with rules right now would be really difficult, haha, but I might give it a whirl when I'm feeling better.

I think most everyone may be missing the point. What I think this is about is the same as a lot of the activism I'm involved with / see everyday...

Basically (correct me if I'm wrong) the artwork is meant to be public domain clipart so people can come to the website and be able to find art resources (assets) which they can use in order to make their card games.

Instead of CCG I do a lot of stuff with VR. And the bottleneck for community DIY stuff is always how do we build a stockpile of quality assets without a warehouse of artists working 40hrs a week at our disposal. I think this is the same kind of initiative only for 2D clipart geared toward Roleplaying. In which case I'd like to commend the effort. Especially if it's not profit motivated 8)

I haven't dug into to much art for my own game at the moment but this would be a valuable asset for a CCG community to have a pool of art to use for non profit uses. I think one of the biggest hurdles in making a card game would be on where to get art and to get the game produced.

Cyrus:

Quote from: CyrusI'm not sure why you're getting so much crap for posting GPL art and templates and saying "hey, make a game out of this."

I myself haven't read the critique that way (but maybe it's because I'm not native english speaking), and to be honest, wouldn't care the least about it if it's main points was that I'm using GPL art.

GPL to me is a feature, an amazing concept, and exactly what I want the game to be. Also, the original art I have hired an artist to produce is GPL:d because I made it so, on purpose. People that think a game is good or bad solely on the grounds of it's copyright or copyleft are not evaluating the game itself: They are making claims about something else, i.e. ideology, consumerism, capitalism, rights, ethics etc etc. While I would love to debate those subjects I don't think doing it in here is the right forum for it. Not do I see how it would help me in any way when it comes to developing WTactics.

I've experienced some of the criticism in this forum and in other posts I've made about WTactics related issues as interesting and creative, especially when it came from Trevor as he took the time and delivered a couple of valuable points on some topics. That said, most of it coming from others has been less constructive and usable. Then again, what would one expect from an open forum? It has it's pros and cons, and all in all, I think the Lackey forum seems to function as I guess Trevor wants it to.

QuoteIf one does not like the layout, they should probably just make a different game.

Yes, indeed that is a possibility. Even if I myself would be helped to read the reasoning behind why another layout (of template or rules etc) would do the job better nobody is forced to work on this project nor explain anything at all to me. On the contrary: Due to the GPL I also hand out our original files to the template - making it extremely easy to re-use it however anyone wants as long as that particular game would be licensed under the GPL (as the template, which we've developed, is).

QuoteI'm really sick right now, so trying to come up with rules right now would be really difficult, haha, but I might give it a whirl when I'm feeling better.

You're welcome to create your own rules / editions of the template etc and/or to join me on my quest with the current rule set I'm working on and creating playtestcards for. Just send me an e-mail or message in here when you feel better.

Just Mick:

Quote from: Just MickI think most everyone may be missing the point. What I think this is about is the same as a lot of the activism I'm involved with / see everyday...

As an old timer on the activist scene in various grass roots movements in Sweden I'd even go as far as stating that any project using an open source license is indeed to take action and because of that a form of activism. A very real one with often measurable results: Whatever you create is clearly always in some state that can be evaluated. So, yes, I'd agree with you on this one (I also think it's true even if people define themselves or their actions in another manner).

QuoteBasically (correct me if I'm wrong) the artwork is meant to be public domain clipart so people can come to the website and be able to find art resources (assets) which they can use in order to make their card games.

The goal of WTactics is to create a CCG that is free & free, in the words two meanings (beer and freedom). It accomplishes that and then some by using the GPL license.  A "side effect", which I myself believe is a great one, is that it also means that people can come to the site and use our resources since we share them with the world.

However, this is technically / legally not the same thing as putting something into the "public domain". The GPL is a copyleft license. The public domain is not. In essence, my personal opinion is that the hugest difference between something which is PD and GPL is that the PD allows people to harvest the resources I give them with WTactics and reap the awards publicly without sharing their own creation by giving others the right to do the same with their derivative work. I.e. if I'd release WTactics under the PD a person could take it, improve/change it however, and then claim copyright over this semi-new work.

That is not so with the GPL: His/Her new work would also fall under the GPL license - effectively giving the world free access to it & it's material. Thus, it's a copyleft license that is "self-reproducing" to a large degree.

(Note: I'm not a lawyer, nor do I claim I have special knowledge in this field. This is just what I believe is the case after reading plenty on the matters. Personally I would never put something in the PD since people can exploit it/me in ways which the GPL hinders them from. I use the GPL to insure whatever I share with the world will live and hopefully prosper. The PD on the other hand wouldn't guarantee such a future since whatever is done with the original doesn't necessarily have to be shared with the world for free.)

I think just because I was sick I was reading everything in a harsh tone, haha.
What program are you using to make the templates? If you're using photoshop and wouldn't mind sharing the PSD files I'd love to take a look at them. Not necessarily to change at all I just like to see how others do things and compare it to my own stuff. I find an interesting new way to achieve different effects almost every time I look at other people's template PSDs.

GPL does not really prevent copyright. Copyrighted products use GPL all the time, it's just the GPL parts are not part of the copyright. I said "basically" public domain because that is basically what I meant.

I don't think generally there is a problem with just tossing everything into the public domain. Entities that want to copyright stuff see anything with a copyleft license or whatever as basically kryptonite. But whatever license people choose is their business. Personally I have respect for people who say, this is public domain, or will be within a few years. There's no hypocrisy or legal mumbo jumbo there and at the end of the day GPL is for all intents and purposes the same deal.

One balancing act I find in this sort of approach to DIY stuff, is if you don't start with a unified esthetic you are bound to fail miserably, but if people don't like the unified esthetic, or can't contribute to it reasonably, you will also not get far. So my advice is keep the visuals generic, and keep them simple enough that you don't have to be an amazing artist or whiz to toss your hat into the game. If artists don't like the style they will be less likely to contribute also. On the other hand with CCG you might be better off following the example of MTG and start tossing in art in various styles from different artists with not too much of any one artist. While MTG appears to be trying to make more and more of the artwork more consistent in terms of style maybe you could fill a vacuum for people who liked the more diverse take and for artists who would like to showcase their stuff.

Finally, I'm not sure you're trying to be the one stop shop for DIY virtually public domain artwork for CCG games, but either way good luck and don't give up.

Allright, I?ll give it a go.

I already designed a few games, and for references and samples, please go to 4GXG.com (same usename in the forums there). I helped designed the rules for the game, even though the project seems kinda dead right now.
and:
currently doing my own private game, Clone Wars Card game. You can check it out over at cardgameforge.: http://www.cardgameforge.com/game.php?id=138

A read the FAQ for Wtactics, and even though it is pretty strict, I think I can make some nice rules for the game. A few questions though:

it says no random draw, does that mean the game should be a board game, disguised as a card game? e.g. no draw-deck, discard piles and such?

it says creature based, so that pretty much means you want it to be combat orientated?

How are factions and creatures devided? by clan, color, race? or can I just invent the House of Nobles (sample name) that holds some Orcs and Dwarves together to form a faction? I could not find any restrictions or help regarding this.

I might be able to take the rules of the Wuxia Pian card game (also my own) and adapt it to fit this game. If you want to read more: http://www.cardgameforge.com/game.php?id=138&mode=rules (I had to take down card samples for server space..)

It might be a nice way to have some form of chess game (card ranks and strengths) with a very limited position game (in a line or 3x3 grid)... hmmm...

what I also need to know is how "deep" you want this game to go. do you want it to be a shuffle, lets play! kinda game (like magic), or a more decision making game, a la games of thrones. On a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 is tic-tac-toe and 10 is a worldwarII simulation game, complete with economics etc, where do you see Wtactics back?

Cyrus:

QuoteWhat program are you using to make the templates? If you're using photoshop and wouldn't mind sharing the PSD files I'd love to take a look at them. Not necessarily to change at all I just like to see how others do things and compare it to my own stuff. I find an interesting new way to achieve different effects almost every time I look at other people's template PSDs.

Since it's an open source project I prefer to use open source software. That way I don't have to rely on the chance that people own software for hundreds of dollars (or are "forced" to pirate it if they can't afford it). So in order to maintain the freedom and also to not be dependent of a single company the template in it's current form was made in Inkscape.

Inkscape is a vector program, comparable to Adobe Illustrator and not Adobe Photoshop. It runs on many plattforms, is free and a very good piece of software with a stable development.

We hardly use any effects at all in the template and there is no complicated magic at work ;) While I'm aware that PS is the industry standard I believe it's the wrong choice for making templates in (at least while they'll still being developed) unless one has very specific needs which only PS would cover. Then again, this is in part my personal opinion and preference - maybe the most important thing for the players is that the template gets created at all and looks and works good. :) I'm just commenting this from my own viewpoint and from a GPL developers perspective.

Just Mick:

QuoteI don't think generally there is a problem with just tossing everything into the public domain. Entities that want to copyright stuff see anything with a copyleft license or whatever as basically kryptonite. But whatever license people choose is their business

I'd say that whether putting something into the public domain or not is the right or wrong choice depends on the purpose and goal with putting it there in the first place and what it's creator/licence holder intends to achieve with him/her giving it to the world.

As for me, putting WTactics in the PD is not an option as it's a) legally impossible due to license of 50% of the art and b) nothing I would do even if it was legally possible since it's my wish that whatever is created & spread based of WTactcis also gets shared with the world on the same terms as I shared. (In other words: I'm not intersted in sharing with free riders / people that take & take and don't necessarily have any intention giving anything back to the world. This is however an ethical statement on my behalf, and I'm sure some would share it and others not).

That entities that want to copyright stuff don't choose a copyleft license isn't weird, nor a problem from my perspective: I'm grateful to not have to deal with them more than necessary for several ethical and ideological reasons.

For somebody that wants to co-work with such entities I would tend to agree with you that the GPL maybe isn't the smoothest of moves (although there are of course very noteworthy multi-million/billion? dollar examples of where GPL-based products have proven to be a lucrative business...) 

As you write - what license people choose is their own business. I respect that, hence you don't see me work on illegal games, fan made sets, or ripping of people and violating against their copyrights etc etc. On the contrary, creating a perfectly legal game that can be out in the public has always been my intent.

My issue with the CCG world is that there are very few complete quality CCG:s which are free in any sense at all, not to mention free in the open source way. I know an open source CCG can be created, and am doing it as we speak. It's hell of a process and it even costs me plenty, but I'm willing to invest whatever is needed and I will succeed one way or the other in the end. :P

QuoteFinally, I'm not sure you're trying to be the one stop shop for DIY virtually public domain artwork for CCG games, but either way good luck and don't give up.

No, I'm not trying to re-create http://opengameart.org/ since it's already around and a pretty good site, becoming better only with time and effort.

WTactics only strives to create an open GPL:d CCG. If it works out it will however be a proof of concept that this is indeed doable and that it could very well work out, hopefully encouraging others with their endeavors. (In my attempt to promote free CCG:s I have also opened up http://www.opencgs.org  - all that know of a free CCG or are the devs of one and want an account are welcome to contact me.)

Thanks, and don't worry - I never fail ;) It just takes really long time and much effort, but I'm used to that and think in long term perspectives anyway.

xchokeholdx:

QuoteI already designed a few games, and for references and samples, please go to 4GXG.com (same usename in the forums there). I helped designed the rules for the game, even though the project seems kinda dead right now.

Nice. Discovered that project the other day and am currently in contact with it's creator to see how/if there are some possibilities to co-work and help each other out. And yes, that project is kind of dead right now according to him. :(

Quotecurrently doing my own private game, Clone Wars Card game. You can check it out over at cardgameforge.: http://www.cardgameforge.com/game.php?id=138

Looked at it. Rules seem simple and easy to pick up. :) I also liked the template - think it looks professional enough to pass as a commercial product.

QuoteA read the FAQ for Wtactics, and even though it is pretty strict, I think I can make some nice rules for the game. A few questions though:

FAQ is currently being revised, and I'm also setting up the Wiki, which is part of the explanation why it's not 100% up to date. My vacation starts now on the 18:th and I'll have 1 month to dedicate on this, in which I hope to have setup all such basic info and do more headway. So, please don't mind the "strictness" as it's probably not as strict as it may look at first glance ;) 

I'll try to answer your questions:

Quoteit says no random draw, does that mean the game should be a board game, disguised as a card game? e.g. no draw-deck, discard piles and such?

Nevermind that part. That was only true for the version I was working on then. I have not abandoned the idea of a CCG where there are no random card draws (currently I'm experimenting with having a random resource system instead and non-random card draws...) and I think it's possible to create such a game. How WTactics will work is up to you to decide if you design your own ruleset for it. If you think random draws makes most sense for your rules set then go with it. If not, then don't =)

On a sidenote: There can be a drawdeck and discard piles etc even if there are no random draws ;)

Quoteit says creature based, so that pretty much means you want it to be combat orientated?

I imagine the core/base set of the game will be about 220 - 250 cards. Correctly used I think that would be enough cards for a base set. About 120 of those cards will have art works of a creature of some sort and that art work already exist and new creatures probably won't be created in masses.

Rest of the art works are being drawn by a hired artist as we speak. Exactly what they depict will only depend on my whims as I'm paying for it myself :P ..but the intention is for those cards to be "Event/Instant/Equipment/Magic" etc cards, in contrast to the creature cards. Hence, I wrote it should be creature based. If they make combat or love is the same to me, but given the graphics and military outfits it sure seems as there is some kind of conflict coming about ;)

There is however nothing that dictates that they must wage war or that their stats are strictly military. I.e. they could have stats similar to A Game of Thrones or whatever. Would be up to you and your rules set =) I personally enjoy games that can combine both military and more civilian aspects in a natural way, but it's nothing easy, nor does it guarantee that the game play itself becomes any better.

QuoteHow are factions and creatures devided? by clan, color, race? or can I just invent the House of Nobles (sample name) that holds some Orcs and Dwarves together to form a faction? I could not find any restrictions or help regarding this.

Good question. Here's a scheme I'm working on:  http://ubuntu-pics.de/bild/71801/wtfactions_TPenK5.png  ...names are not set in stone and will change. As you see my suggestion is that there are 3 alliances, and that each is made up of several factions. I do however imagine that a player can use all factions in one deck if he/she desires it (this is to maximize deck building combos given we have only 250 cards in the base set) and that the game rules would see to it that that still remains balanced. I.e. that is done with mana in MTG, but in my current system there would be other mechanics that would make it harder and harder to play the more factions you involve in your deck.

A more graphical representation of the above is this one: http://forums.wesnoth.org/download/file.php?id=39470&mode=view

The alliance and faction scheme above is something we can expand and re-create in the future if/when the need arises and as we get more creature cards. The reason for why it looks like it does is that by grouping creatures by their species gives each faction a clearer and easier visual identity, hence you won't find dwrarfs or elfs in all factions/alliances.  If/when we deem it interesting to expand the factions possibilities to re-arrange the alliances open up, but right now it's not a priority or a necessity to get the game going.

QuoteI might be able to take the rules of the Wuxia Pian card game (also my own) and adapt it to fit this game.

I found it using the search on the site (your link went to the previous game). Looks interesting. I welcome any and all contributions which are followed up with a) Complete rules and b) Enough created cards for those rules which would allow us to playtest it using Lackey CCG. I will of course playtest and read everything, but would want to playtest it mainly with the author of the rules. :)

If you do indeed want to give it a shot and type up rules please use our still un-official and still being constructed-wiki: http://WTactics.org/wiki  ...and make sure you register on it and ask me if you need help with anything at all. :)
Notice: Whatever cards & rules is in there is just what I happen to work on. You'd have to create separate pages for your rules/cards. I could create more apparent division on the main page for that purpose once you have done so.

QuoteIt might be a nice way to have some form of chess game (card ranks and strengths) with a very limited position game (in a line or 3x3 grid)... hmmm...

As long as it:

1) is playable on a normal kitchen table (meaning doesn't use much larger grid than that)
2) grid is directly on table and requires no extra board etc
3) game doesn't involve extremely much movement each turn (it's a card game, moving cards and placing them nicely in a grid is hard)

..it could very well work.

Quotewhat I also need to know is how "deep"

Deep but not epic. Easy to pickup but hard to master. Level of MTG time wise and preparation wise is a good hint.

Quotedo you want it to be a shuffle, lets play! kinda game (like magic),

Deck building must be in the game, but that doesn't mean that a deck must be many cards. So, just shuffling and picking cards at random is not of interest - it must be a game where the deck construction matters a lot. It's not supposed to be a partygame. ;) It's supposed to be strategical and played with cards. If that translates to an ordinary CCG or a hybrid between that and a board game that is played with cards, that is your call :) What we call it is not important really. How it plays is. It must of course have very high replayability and customization, hence the deck aspect. 

Quoteor a more decision making game, a la games of thrones.

I've never played GoT but have watched it's demo videos several times. I like the multiple ways to challange player, but dislike the "mission" cards. All in all it does however seem to be a nice game with solid play.. and my opinions about it are irrelevant in the context.

I don't know if I'd describe MTG as a non-decision making game or as less complex than GoT, although I have played MTG several years and seem both sophisticated play as well as the contrary.

I would welcome multiple win conditions (2-3) in WTactics if they could work separated from one and another and in a natural way, avoiding creating a game where leading in one of them would make you a leader in the others as well... ;)

Decisions & interaction & little downtime is central in any game.

QuoteOn a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 is tic-tac-toe and 10 is a worldwarII simulation game, complete with economics etc, where do you see Wtactics back?

Shouldn't be much harder than MTG to learn and it shouldn't take much longer than 1 h to play in average for a 1vs1 game. I think that can work as a good frame, and at the same time I would love to see some added depth to it which isn't in MTG and which maybe would indeed utilize card positions somehow (but not necessarily - strategic depth can maybe be added in other ways).

I'd place WTactics as a 6-7, and MTG as a 5, while I'd place complex WW-boardgames that take days to play on a 10. We want a game that's playable casually without any preparation beyond the deck building, but that still offers enough depth that it is meaningful to consider it as an option for the competitive players.

Please add me to msn >> subcodes at hotmail dot com if you have any questions at all or need help with anything, and I'll reply as soon as I see it. :)

Thanks for the clarification, it helped a lot to find some ideas, even though most questions I already had some clue of what the answer would be.

I told you that the Wuxia Pian ccg Rules would fit this game, but I was wrong. Wuxia pian only uses a few "creature" type cards, and mostly evolve around one epic combat between 2 fighters. I don?t think that it will fit Wtactics. But it seems I was looking at the wrong game after all, because the Rules for the clone wars ccg fit the theme better. I?ll post a one pager over at the wiki today or tomorrow, so you can have a look. It mostly resolves around playing characters, with a few other cards, like events and or artifacts. A location card is used to determine who goes first each turn, but that can be easily changed into another card type for Wtactics.

Good thing about the rules is that you do not need to keep track of resources, and there is no tapping involved. Maybe you won?t like the victory condition, but that can be worked on..

I had never heard of http://opengameart.org/. Unfortunately I don't know of any initiatives like this that are really successful on the level that would be required in order to get people making games en mass. Opengameart while game oriented does not appear exceptional. A valiant effort nonetheless.

alright, here is a rough draft, but any experienced card flopper will get the gist:

60 cards deck.
3 card types: creatures, artifacts and events
players start with 4 cards in hand and 4 influence (influence is tracked by face down cards from the top of your draw deck)

costs.
A cost is anything you must pay to use an Action text or to play a card. This usually is using an amount of influence, but can also be discarding a card from hand, for example.
You pay for influence use by placing an equal number of cards from your influence pool underneath your draw deck.

Each time you wish to use a card from a faction while you control cards from other factions, all costs on that card are increased by +1 influence.

Flow.
Each time you play or use a card, it is tied to the Flow. A green colored Flow icon means you may continue play or use cards. A red colored Flow icon means you may not play more cards for that turn.
At the left of each creature card you will find three Flow icons. One for each way you can play that creature card; as a creature, to use its game text or to gain influence.
Event and Artifact cards do not have Action text, so you can only use them in two ways (play as a Event/Artifact on table or discard to gain influence) and thus only have two Flow icons.

- Start of Turn step
- Influence step
- Action step
- Assign step
- Combat step           
- Reinforce step
- End of turn step

- Start of Turn step.
All effects on cards with the game text ?At the start of each turn? must be resolved before beginning with the Influence step. If multiple at the start of each turn effects take place, the player with the most influence chooses in which order they resolve.
If there are no more at the start of each turn effects to resolve, go to the Influence step.

- Influence Step.
Starting with the player with the most influence,all players must choose to either draw one card from the top of their draw deck or gain 1 Influence.

- Actions Step.
Starting with the player with the most influence, that player may use actions until he or she uses a Red colored Flow icon or chooses not to use more actions for this turn (passes). Then the next player to the left may use actions. Continue this until no more players may use actions this turn.

an action usually is: Play a card, use an action text, discard a card from hand to gain influence, etc..

- Assign Step.
Starting with the player with the most influence, players take turns assigning one of their unassigned creatures in play to an opponent?s unassigned creature. Place assigned creatures aside from unassigned creatures (in a line) so you can easily distinguish which creatures were assigned first and which creatures are (still) unassigned.

- Combat Step.
Combat always starts with the creatures who were assigned first, and ending with creatures that stayed unassigned and were lined up last.

Starting with the player with the most influence, players may use 1 of their influence to increase their creatures Attack value by 1 for the current combat. Players take turns doing so until both players do not wish to use more influence (both players pass) for the current combat.
Compare both creature's Attack value to their opponent's Block value. Loser(s) (could be both creatures) receive one wound. wounds=life=death=discarded.

After all assigned creatures have their combat resolved; any left-over unassigned creatures will automatically win their combat and your opponent will lose 1 influence for each combat lost this way.

- Reinforce step.

Starting with the player with the most influence, players may take into hand any number of cards from their Influence pool.

- End of Turn step. (same as start of turn step)


Winning the game.

The object of the game is to either to:
have 20 or more influence: you win the game
Opponent has no influence: you win the game
Opponent has no cards left in their draw deck: you win the game.
You complete a victory condition on an event card: you win the game.


How to keep track of influence?
The Influence pool is where you keep track of the Influence that you have gained or lost during turns. Each time you discard a card from hand to gain influence, you add the amount listed on the discarded card to your Influence pool. This is done be placing cards from the top of your draw deck face down in a separate pile. You also may choose to gain 1 influence during the Influence step of a turn.


creature cards have:
? Name (maybe uniqueness to create Epic and noticeable creatures)
? Faction: Nayma / the Black Legion / The Empire (to have different play styles, with some overlap)
? Type: Archer, Druid, Mage, Warrior (working together, e.g.: if you control 3 or more archers, do this and that)
? Attack value (attack>Block of opponent's creature = one wound dealt)
? Block value (block>attack of opponent's creature = no wound received)
? Life value (wounds = life = death = discarded from play)
? Influence value (discard card to increase influence pool = cards from top of draw deck)
? game text (active when card is in play. triggered abilities etc.)
? action text (pay influence cost and discard card from hand to use action text)
--------------------------------------------------


you might think that with only 4 influence in play, players would easily lose the game based on the "Opponent has no influence: you win the game" rule. This might be true, but can be balanced easily with some adjusting. Fist of all, it will probably also bring your own influence dangerously low if you try to win that way (e.g. you want to play lots of creatures, thus drawing lots of cards from your influence)
Second of all, any weary player may simple generate more influence than you can "kill", and slowly take over the game. Even though that would bring him closer to the "Opponent has no cards left in their draw deck: you win the game." rule.

These rules will have to be playtested of course, and any gametext on cards can easily impact these victory conditions. for example:

Baron of Whoomp:
Players may not lose more than 2 influence each turn due to combat.

So if I generate 3 influence each turn, you?ll have a very hard time to win on that. (but generating 3 influence each turn means I "lose" 3 cards from my drawdeck each turn, balancing it somewhat)

Let me know if you liked these, so I can make some sample cards to test with. maybe the starting hand needs to be adjusted, or the influence gain.

PM me for questions, or mail me direct @ SPAMmarmatone@hotmail.comSPAM. (remove SPAM)


some rough numbers, needs testing:

cost for playing creatures: 0-1-2
cost for using actions: 0-1-2

life on creature cards: between 1 and 3, with an exception to 4
attack between 0 and 5
defense between 0 and 5
influence between 0 and 4, 3 and 4 influence will always be paired with RED flow, ending your actions for that turn.

This sounds awful close to a resource system I am working on... Though mine is a bit different.

Quote from: Dragoon on June 16, 2010, 05:22:24 AM
This sounds awful close to a resource system I am working on... Though mine is a bit different.

yeah, it comes directly from my 2 other games I created, and since those were play tested quite a bit, I can safely say that it works fine. you just need to be careful NOT to create cards that can abuse this system.

having a random resource like magic has creates too many SCREW or FLOOD games, and who wants to win/lose those?
and having a fixed increased resource system (VS, WOW) makes you prone to the "curve out or miss" rule..

Having control over your own resources, at the cost of cards in your hand and a weak turn (due to less cards on hand), makes it a fine way to balance. add in the "no deck you lose" rule, and you balanced it as a whole.
Generate too much means you use more cards from hand, you will draw more cards, so your draw deck will empty quicker.

of course, it all grew out the Decipher Star wars game.

xchokeholdx:

QuoteI?ll post a one pager over at the wiki today or tomorrow, so you can have a look. It mostly resolves around playing characters, with a few other cards, like events and or artifacts

Please make it as detailed as needed to play the game. I'd love to give input on it but what I have to say about it isn't the most important thing since rules have to be playtested in order to evaluate them. Do you have a Lackey patch online for the clone-game?

I would be happy to play that with you on sunday or whenever we could agree on a time, in order to get a feeling of the game and come with input on the basics of it. :) We could use lackey and skype or equivalent if you have a mic.

I agree that it's usually a good idea to cut down on adminstration in a game. I.e. if the resource system can indeed work in a solid way without tapping a zillion cards every turn and untap them the next (this is called "(un)marking" in WT due to copyright/patent issues) then one should go with such a solution. While I myself like what mana does in MTG I really think there are better ways to solve the handling of it, not to mention that aprox. 20-30% of most standard decks is used to resource cards in order to avoid mana screws.

(Sidenote: What I am testing myself currently for WT is to let each player roll a d6 every new round. The combined result of those throws = number of resources both players will get that round. There are of course also cards that affect this, but they're not central to the game like for instance lands are in MTG. This - random resources - is combined with either a liberal card draw from a shuffled deck or with no random card draw at all, meaning the player can always choose freely which cards to play from his/her deck. I am still creating the playtest cards for this concept and haven't tried either version yet. Test cards for it this far can be seen on http://chaosrealm.net/wtactics/wiki/index.php?title=Naima_Cards ) 

Update:
While writing this post you actually wrote another reply in here, with the rules. Please submit them to the wiki with proper formatting, for legal reasons & workload I won't do this myself ;) And you also know them way better than me, enabling you to clean them up, clarify and what not :)

I still think the rules seem very simple yet interesting. Only thing which wasn't all to clear to me:

• When, if ever, would a player lose because he/she has no Influence? Doesn't that win-condition bring the effect that a player will always have at least one card on purpose in the Influence-pile? (If so, then that win condition should probably be dropped as it will hardly ever be interesting or add anything to the game.) I guess losing the combat answers this one... but, yes, it seems as if one would become empty on influence pretty fast. This is however just my speculation since I've never played it...
• The assignment and combat phases seem to overlap and actually be one and the same thing, but with the last one being the "resolving". Maybe these two could be expressed somewhat clearer in the wiki.


• Doesn't the combat system / unassigned creatures-win-automatically condition make it very preferably to try to just spam as a huge amount of creatures as possible? That the game favours weenie decks?


• Say I have 5 creatures and my opponent has 10. I assign one of mine to one of his. I now have 4 unassigned and he has 9 unassigned(?). I win the combat against his creature. Now what happens?


• I think your "flow" concept is interesting. It reminds me of a hardcode Action Point system: Either you have unlimited action points, or you have effectively ended all your action points by playing a red-flow card. Am I right? If so, only way I can interpret the flow is that it is an extra cost for some (powerfull) cards. Thus, flow is AP, and AP is actually resource that usually replenish themself each round and are usually very unaffected by the cards. If so, wouldn't it be even more balanced out and opprtunities to create "mid tier cards" if there were 3 levels of Flow? a) Cards that are unlimited - cost 0 AP  b) Cards that cost 1 AP and c) cards that cost 2 AP? Wouldn't that give you more space to design cards if a player gets 2 AP:s every new turn and AP:s can't be saved to next turn? I don't know, I may have missunderstood the flow thing completely. If so, disregard from this ;)   

Also, which means of communication do you prefer? Should we use email from now on? (My mail: eyerouge at gmail dot com, my MSN: subcodes at hotmail dot com ...and my xmpp: same as my mail)

As I wrote above somewhere, I'd love to playtest clonewars. Let's try doing that before you put down time on creating the cards for WT. :)

Just Mick:

QuoteUnfortunately I don't know of any initiatives like this that are really successful on the level that would be required in order to get people making games en mass. Opengameart while game oriented does not appear exceptional. A valiant effort nonetheless

I also don't know of many (any?) others except the blender site for 3d models. But, what do you think it is lacking? What would make it exceptional?

"Only" problem I can see at this point with the site is that it is low on content, but that is hardly the admins fault - the site becomes whatever the world makes of it. If nobody uploads resources to it then it will be less useful. If there were a million successful projects that had good free art and all would share it on the site then people would have a pretty huge resource bank to choose materials from.

Quote from: eyerouge on June 16, 2010, 06:44:59 AM

• I think your "flow" concept is interesting. It reminds me of a hardcode Action Point system: Either you have unlimited action points, or you have effectively ended all your action points by playing a red-flow card. Am I right? If so, only way I can interpret the flow is that it is an extra cost for some (powerfull) cards. Thus, flow is AP, and AP is actually resource that usually replenish themself each round and are usually very unaffected by the cards. If so, wouldn't it be even more balanced out and opprtunities to create "mid tier cards" if there were 3 levels of Flow? a) Cards that are unlimited - cost 0 AP  b) Cards that cost 1 AP and c) cards that cost 2 AP? Wouldn't that give you more space to design cards if a player gets 2 AP:s every new turn and AP:s can't be saved to next turn? I don't know, I may have missunderstood the flow thing completely. If so, disregard from this ;)   

I think that is a good idea. Use symols to set the amount of AP cost, because having a lot of 0's on cards is boring. Or use a red - yellow/orange - green style of icons. Green = you can play any. Yellow = you can play any number of greens or one yellow. Red = No more cards/abilities can be used.

• When, if ever, would a player lose because he/she has no Influence? Doesn't that win-condition bring the effect that a player will always have at least one card on purpose in the Influence-pile? (If so, then that win condition should probably be dropped as it will hardly ever be interesting or add anything to the game.) I guess losing the combat answers this one... but, yes, it seems as if one would become empty on influence pretty fast. This is however just my speculation since I've never played it...

A: Indeed, that would seems so, but it does not go that way, since you must also be drawing lots of cards (to play them), meaning you want to create lots of influence to do so. We will of course not create creatures with GREEN flow that you can use for quick, free influence. And what will you do if my Master of Madness kills all unassigned creatures at the end of each turn? see below.

the win condition can easily be changed to "no influence at the end of a turn", opening up the door to have no influence during your turn, in case you need that last card to win. again, this all needs testing too.

• The assignment and combat phases seem to overlap and actually be one and the same thing, but with the last one being the "resolving". Maybe these two could be expressed somewhat clearer in the wiki.

A: will do!

• Doesn't the combat system / unassigned creatures-win-automatically condition make it very preferably to try to just spam as a huge amount of creatures as possible? That the game favours weenie decks?

A: cheap creatures die fast, and we?ll just have to make sure that they do. Maybe a simple change to the rules can solve it: you lose 1 influence if one of your creatures dies, instead of the other combat rule that you lose 1 influence for each unnassigned creature. forcing you to win the combats.. hmmm, not a bad idea..

• Say I have 5 creatures and my opponent has 10. I assign one of mine to one of his. I now have 4 unassigned and he has 9 unassigned(?). I win the combat against his creature. Now what happens?

A: no, players take turns assigning one of their unnassigned characters to an opponent's unassigned character until there are no unnassigned characters left for a player to assign to.
in your example, you would have 5 assigned creatures and your opponent as well. 5 of his creatures would be unassigned. Even though I highly doubt it you?ll get 10 creatures into play alive and well :)

• I think your "flow" concept is interesting. It reminds me of a hardcode Action Point system: Either you have unlimited action points, or you have effectively ended all your action points by playing a red-flow card. Am I right? If so, only way I can interpret the flow is that it is an extra cost for some (powerfull) cards. Thus, flow is AP, and AP is actually resource that usually replenish themself each round and are usually very unaffected by the cards. If so, wouldn't it be even more balanced out and opprtunities to create "mid tier cards" if there were 3 levels of Flow? a) Cards that are unlimited - cost 0 AP  b) Cards that cost 1 AP and c) cards that cost 2 AP? Wouldn't that give you more space to design cards if a player gets 2 AP:s every new turn and AP:s can't be saved to next turn? I don't know, I may have missunderstood the flow thing completely. If so, disregard from this ;)   

A: indeed. You can go simple and only use 2 colors, RED+GREEN, or use three, or even add numbers to the colored icons to have an influence cost as well on top of the colors. all up for testing.
Adding AP's would force you to keep track of it. Do I still have 1 AP left, or did I used it up? with the Flow, you know for sure when you played that RED flow card. no need for counting, no rules questions (does this action cost 1 AP or is it free?)
Another option is to add (as Dragoon said) ORANGE colors, or as I did with Wuxia Pian: Question marks. (?).
Then the card will be a GREEN or RED one, depending on the outcome. for example:
(?) Quest for glory.
Gain 2 loyalty. If you have 5 or more loyalty, RED. If you have less than 5 loyalty, GREEN.



I prefer mail for now, as my free time is limited with a family and a second one coming .. but I have loooaaaddds of time during work, so I can type away when I am at work.

Of course, some free time can be made to playtest. I have not yet stuffed clonewars into lacky, but let me see if I can make a quick plugin so I can show you the rules while playing. It makes much more sense that way.

and as I always say: keep the rules simple, let the cards create depth. It is very easy to add Banding, flanking, first strike, flying, hidden etc.. abilities to cards and actions, but I always felt the rules should have a basic "feel" about them. Then let players create the depth and fun![/list]

Quote from: eyerouge on June 16, 2010, 06:44:59 AM
I also don't know of many (any?) others except the blender site for 3d models. But, what do you think it is lacking? What would make it exceptional?

"Only" problem I can see at this point with the site is that it is low on content, but that is hardly the admins fault - the site becomes whatever the world makes of it. If nobody uploads resources to it then it will be less useful. If there were a million successful projects that had good free art and all would share it on the site then people would have a pretty huge resource bank to choose materials from.

There are many others. They never go anywhere because they start from the premise of just tossing random stuff in at random. The way I am approaching this differently is A) all of the artwork needs to be consistent in style. B) if you want to make a different look for the artwork, then the same treatment needs to be applied to as many of the assets in the database as possible, so that ideally you could totally swap out the visual style of any game. C) People are encouraged to reuse the same assets so you end up with many games with the same stuff in them but with a few things new each which then goes into the pool.

When you can enforce that kind of consistency you can start to form an inventory that people can actually make games or whatever with. Also we encourage sets from completed games to be added versus one off stuff. I would like to eventually grow the model to a worldwide generic repository of public domain content but it will have to be extremely organized in order to work effectively. Hopefully within a year or less I plan to have all models from PSOne games opened up to the world. That's the graphical level I think people are best equipped to work with. And I think it's good enough to convey whatever people need to do. For a CCG you don't have the problem of needing to be consistent if you follow the original MTG model of each card being a work of art within itself. For games for example obviously its not acceptable for all of the assets involved to be in random styles.

xchokeholdx:

Quote from: I* Doesn't the combat system / unassigned creatures-win-automatically condition make it very preferably to try to just spam as a huge amount of creatures as possible? That the game favours weenie decks?

Quote from: You
A: cheap creatures die fast, and we?ll just have to make sure that they do. Maybe a simple change to the rules can solve it: you lose 1 influence if one of your creatures dies, instead of the other combat rule that you lose 1 influence for each unnassigned creature

• Even if weenies die fast it doesn't matter much: It still seems viable that the rules favor weenie decks. Say you have 4-7 weenies in play all the time and that the opponent keeps killing them off with his mid/heavy-sized creatures. As long as you have more (unassigned) creatures than the opponent then you start winning, especially if you can keep up the creature spam... unless I miss something here.



• I don't believe the rules should be changed in that way to fix this particular problem (Notice: if this is indeed a problem. It's very easy for us to speculate here but it's not worth much until we playtest it :) and see how it all fares. Thus, I don't think we should waste that much time on polemics compared to playing and discovering what's broke and what works great.) Reason is that removing a dead creature is already a method to "count" and administer the outcome of something important in the game - the result of the combat. To create ad hoc rules that demand yet another counter/arithmetics operation to activate every time a creature dies is not elegant or streamlined, and it doesn't solve the problem - it would perhaps only clean up it's consequences. In other words: "Double counting" should be avoided.

Quote from: youA: indeed. You can go simple and only use 2 colors, RED+GREEN, or use three, or even add numbers to the colored icons to have an influence cost as well on top of the colors. all up for testing.
Adding AP's would force you to keep track of it. Do I still have 1 AP left, or did I used it up? with the Flow, you know for sure when you played that RED flow card. no need for counting, no rules questions (does this action cost 1 AP or is it free?)

There is a really huge difference to AP:s and Flow, and while the concepts seem very similar at first glance I'd still want to point out the apparent and main gap between them: AP:s are a pure cost system that is definitive. Flow is not, and harder to grasp in all it's brilliant simplicity. Bear with me here.  :o

Example with AP:

• Imagine the game has some kind of resource system. Let's call it mana, gold, force, or whatever. This is the main cost in the game.
• Pretend that each player gets 3 new AP every turn. AP:s are not saved between turns. AP:s are a "secondary" cost.
• Imagine that 40% of all cards in the game cost 0 AP, 30% cost 1 AP, 20% of the cards cost 2 AP and 10% cost 3 AP. (Or use any % you want, as these are examples..)
• Now, a player can play however many 0 AP cards she wants, but 60% of the game's card pool costs ≥ 1 AP. To build a viable deck you would have to master the AP:s, and in most situations a player would have to make decisions based on how many AP:s he/she has left that round. I.e. you can't play 2 x 2 AP cards on one round. Nor can you play one 1 AP-card and one 3 AP card during the same round.
• Compare this to flow: Flow doesn't really restrict anything at all beyond what order you will have to play the cards. I can play a zillion cards as long as I can afford it, and still finish off with red flow card at the end if I can pay it's resource costs.
• Point being: AP:s don't necessarily effect the order of how the cards will be played, and they offer a great tool for balancing. Flow does not offer the same instrument for balancing, and does not fill the same extra-cost effect as AP:s do. Instead, it brings something else - timing/order (which could very well be what we're after, would depend on the game and purpose of the system)


• I agree that counting AP:s each round can be tedious if there isn't a simple and 100% coherent system for doing it. An example of how most games do it is to let certain actions cost AP:s (usually same amount), while others are free. Another way is to simply print in numbers/icons how many AP:s some things cost. As long as AP:s are kept ≤ 3 I'd say it's very easy to keep track of them & almost impossible to fail. Once you start giving a lot of AP:s to each player and have very different AP-costs for all kinds of stuff you start getting chaos. :P


• This brings me to the question at hand: What is the purpose with Flow? Why do you have it around at all? What's the rationale behind it? Is it a) as a secondary cost to balance cards? b) to, for some reason, affect the order of cards being played? or c) Something else I'm missing here? Please don't get me wrong here - I ask because I want to fully understand it's part in the game, and only after knowing what it's intention is would it be possible for me to grasp how well it's performing it.

Quote
and as I always say: keep the rules simple, let the cards create depth. It is very easy to add Banding, flanking, first strike, flying, hidden etc.. abilities to cards and actions, but I always felt the rules should have a basic "feel" about them. Then let players create the depth and fun

I'm totally with you on this one. I also think we should start playtesting clonewars as soon as you have created the patch - learning by doing is the way to go here. All discussions in the world won't help in the end compared to a good old session at the table :P (Btw, I'll mail you about this as well)

Just Mick

Quote
There are many others. They never go anywhere because they start from the premise of just tossing random stuff in at random.

I'm not sure I agree: My guess is there are plenty of resources from the same source, i.e. a GPL game. Then the content from that game is not "random" at all - it's relevant to that specific game. This could of course still give us as viewers a very random feeling when seeing different parts from the game being scattered all over the place and not seeing the pieces within their original context.

Then again, I think you very well could be correct that there are many small fragments from different sources there. But, that is not related to the site per se - it's all up to the users how they make use of it.

QuoteThe way I am approaching this differently is A) all of the artwork needs to be consistent in style.

I'm not sure I follow: If that was to be  true, it would mean that such a site would have to be nisched towards i.e. 2d and not contain any 3d, or vice versa. Or realistic vs cartoony, true isometric vs top down view, and so on and so forth. However it would have been done it would exclude more styles than it would include. As a result, the site would be very usable by people that want a specific look, but worthless to anyone else. All games based of the site would also look identical. It would probably also mean that several such sites would be needed. I don't see any benefit with that, as it would most likely only fragment the community thats is slowly evolving around it. (If that site is slow and is low on content, what would a site with a super-nisched style be?)

Quote
B) if you want to make a different look for the artwork, then the same treatment needs to be applied to as many of the assets in the database as possible, so that ideally you could totally swap out the visual style of any game.

Ah. I get an impression you want a gigantic database that contains very very huge amounts of objects, and where they're all a part of one specific "art set". I.e. let's say we have a chair, a gun, a cow and a car (+ 10k other objects) drawn Manga style. Then we'd want the same objects available in western realistic style, and in full 3d, and so on. Am I getting you right?

That would of course allow people to choose the style of their game and get all the graphics they need directly. Problem with the style coherency within  an art set would be born from the fact that so many objects in one set are likely to have very many different artists involved. Even though they all draw i.e. manga, there would probably still be huge variations quality wise.

The only way of achieving what you(?) are envisioning is through a massive and coordinated effort. One that probably needs to be financed by plenty of cash in the end.  :P

QuoteC) People are encouraged to reuse the same assets so you end up with many games with the same stuff in them but with a few things new each which then goes into the pool.

Yes, could turn out that way. Would be interesting with some kind of license that even forced people to give back/add about 2 - 5% of the total number of objects they "took" from the db to begin with ;) or that they could choose to pay an inhouse artist to create those % of the new objects that will then be added to the public pool. That would insure the db's growth and also make it a give-and-take-thing.

Quote. For a CCG you don't have the problem of needing to be consistent if you follow the original MTG model of each card being a work of art within itself.

True, but I don't.  :D It would make life simpler for the project but I want something that feels way more consistent than MTG does and hope WT will feel more so in the end than many other CCG:s do. It's an aesthetical question based on my own subjective preference vs economy and patience - it's usually much easier and cheaper to pick up random art and create a CCG than using the same artist(s).

Sadly this seems to be a fact for WotC as well as they have used a million different artists despite the fact that they have the worlds strongest CCG brand and millions of dollars to invest in unique and original artwork that could very well be 100% consistent if they ever wanted it to. The fact they're still mixing styles wildly both within expansions but even more so in between them suggest that there are strong economical and time saving incentives to use "random art".

hey i have started a card game but have no idea how to get it up onto the lackey software
how do i do this? thanks!

Allright, I am playtesting some basic rules that were adapted from the clone wars card game. Since creatures now have life, I had to tweak some rules a bit. Also some other changes to the rules were needed.

I?ll post once I get the rules to work.

but to give an insight:

1 vs 1
60 cards decks
creatures have no "cost", just Flow.
each creature has stats: Influence, Strenght, drain and Life
players start with 4 cards, and 4 influence (4 face down cards). Numbers will vary.
each time you play a creature, opponent gains 1 influence, or X influence (X=creature power). needs to be tested.
have 20 influence = win game
have no influence at end of turn = lose game
no draw deck = lose game

players take turns assigning one of their creatures to opponent creatures until none can be assigned.

creatures compare STR vs STR, higher wins and dealt 1 wound. creature life=wound=death=discarded.
when you win a combat, you "drain" influence from opponent = value of drain on creature.
if you have any unassigned creatures = opponent loses 1 influence for each unassigned creature, or just 1 influence in total, needs to be tested., or none at all. (maybe some creature may never be assigned)

influence can be used during combat to add STR to your creature (place cards used from influence back under draw deck). this might come in handy to tie STR in combat, to prevent a massive drain.

influence may be used to draw cards from at end of turn. This sounds very broken, but each card you draw is one less influence an opponent needs to drain from you. however, it MIGHT just be that cards you were looking for to turn the game around.

early testing shows that "swarm" tactics are very effective early on, but they lose out very fast, due to low life creatures, and massive influence loss.

my one big creature with high Drain will constantly win the combat vs your swarm deck, thus "draining" you of equal influence. because my creature is ALSO killing your swarms, you need to play more cards to "keep up" the influence battle. needless to say that you will soon run out of cards in your hand to play, and you will have to use influence to draw extra cards, or use influence to prevent the big draining creature to drain more.

will post more when the dust has settled.

------------

What happens here is that for each card you play, you are giving influence to your opponent (just a bit like lord of the rings ccg did ). You might think this will cause players to NOT wanting to play cards, and only use cards that give out very little influence to your opponent. True, but due to the way players assign creatures, you NEED to keep playing cards to increase your chances of a favorable assignment of one of your creatures, either to drain, or to prevent draining.
I think and hope it will be like a small domino effect. Because I play this, you need to play that, which makes me want to play this, etc...

this weekend I?ll test more. I need to do this before I can send in some final rules. I need to know if the game flows enough, does not stall too many times (e.g. players run out of cards too fast), and if the mechanics are broken by itself.
This also depends of course on the gametext/numbers on the cards itself, but a basis that rules out a lot of possible abusable mechanics is needed, and I think I am already pushing it by using influence in so many ways.. maybe that needs to change, and just stick to the "Decked = loss" rule.

---------
To add something about the flow: True, you probably want to play with lots and lots of GREEN creatures, to just keep playing, but you will also add RED creatures, since you can play one as well during your turn. Both players can use this swarm tactic, thus balancing it. If you do not like to play a swarm tactic you can. that one big RED creature will probably stay on table a lot longer than your GREEN creatures, thus having an equal impact.
If not, we can always create effects on cards like: GREEN creatures may not be played, see here:
http://www.cardgameforge.com/game.php?id=138&mode=cards&cid=9364
or
http://www.cardgameforge.com/game.php?id=138&mode=cards&cid=8628

Take a look at the EPIC card game, which pretty much uses a similar system. I prefer mine, since you also get to use other effects on your cards as well if you want.

Per response aimed directly at me. I really don't want to get into a back and forth. But yes you have to choose somewhere to start, ie. a niche. And people just have to get in line behind that niche if they want to be realistic about making DIY games. Not being (or wanting to be) multi-millionaire studios you can't have everything your way and there is no reason to expect to. You start with a cult fan set. For instance what I'm working with is this interesting software has virtually no EULA restrictions and comes with a lincense to print games with a major IP attached including a built in database with hundreds of assets that look like this (http://www.fromsoftware.jp/main/soft/som_dl.html)

The style of the assets are very similar to a PSOne game called "Shadow Tower" which the company was doing before they did this. So I'm going to take everything out of ST and add it to this database doubling its built in size. At the same time people making games in this vein add regularly to the trough so to speak. There are also many games with different visual styles that can also be mined in this way. Point is you have to start somewhere that is practical and build up to a pitch, and only then is it feasible to talk about branching out. People who gripe it's not their style can either A) start their own thing, or B) be realistic (but that is understandable if the style is too particular or too difficult to replicate, which is why if you're interested in the interest of others it is important to keep things simple if not also generic)

Quote from: eyerouge on June 13, 2010, 06:27:38 AM
I've hired an artist as a result of a discussion in here :P Here are some sample & work copies of the new original art work for the game:  Please don't comment mechanics & wording as these are mere samples.

(http://chaosrealm.net/wtactics/wp-content/2010/05/wt_by_love_card.png)
(http://chaosrealm.net/wtactics/wp-content/2010/04/peace.png)
(http://chaosrealm.net/wtactics/wp-content/2010/06/wt_take_from_the_rich_card.png)


Developers are wanted and needed. :)


nice picture, i like to save it...

xchokeholdx:

Wiki wiki my friend. :) Create a user, login in and put it all online there so it becomes readable and easier to edit. + Shout when you have a lackey patch for clone wars, so we can try stuff out. :)


new artwork:
(http://chaosrealm.net/wtactics/wp-content/2010/06/Card_Erode.png)

will do!

I play tested some different rules during this weekend with some friends, and we all agree that some sort of resource system is needed for this type of game. I do NOT want this to become the main focus of the game though (like Magic somewhat is).

Like, if I miss my land drop, I lose.
I need to include these different resource cards in order to..
etc, etc..

so we came up with a sort of system that the Lord of the rings had, but without the need for counters. I also HATE to have too many different states in the game to keep track off (life, resources, victory conditions, life on creatures, etc), so I am trying to fit Loyalty both as resource AND victory condition together. I think it will be HELL to balance it, but it will be awesomesauce if we can.

Players start with 4 (still needs to be tested if this is the right number) Loyalty. maybe the first player starts with 5 (one more).

Loyalty are face down cards from your draw deck.


each time you play a card, you lose X loyalty, and your opponent gains X.
example: card XYZ has the following cost:(1/3). This means you lose 1 loyalty, opponent gains 3.

this provides the game with a VERY WIDE field of card costs, without the need for further going into colors or resource types.

losing 1 loyalty means placing one card from your loyalty pool underneath your drawdeck.
gaining 1 loyalty means placing the top card of your draw deck face-down into your loyalty pool.

So playing a lot of cards means losing loyalty, AND opponent is gaining loyalty. This gives the game a "stop" on both ends. I can not play too many cards, since it will deplete my loyalty and I can not play too many cards since my opponent?s loyalty is getting close to 20.

So playing card is bad? not really, as the cards in play (creatures) will of course be a bigger threat to my loyalty then the cards in may hand. How? through combat.

game winners needs to be fine tuned, but the No loyalty=lose, 20 Loyalty=win seems possible.

This will mean that in the beginning of the game, players really need to be careful with their Loyalty, and they are probably not able to play strong cards that have a high loyalty cost. As the game progresses, players will slowly begin to build up loyalty, giving them the option of playing that big fat loyalty Duke of Hazards that turns the game around.

don?t forget that players may use loyalty during combat to turn the combat into their favor, AND use loyalty at the end of turn to draw extra cards.

Combat still needs fine tuning, because it is very hard to find a perfect balance. Will creatures have just 1, 2 or even 3 values? (ATT/DEF/LOYALTY DRAIN).
Will the winner of a combat just drain 1, drain equal to their loyalty drain value, or is the defense from the defender subtracted from it? etc..etc.. will play test more, but it is beginning to take shape.

Players will have LOW loyalty because of:
- Playing cards from hand
- Losing combats vs Creatures
- using loyalty during combat to win
- using loyalty to draw extra cards eot.

Players will gain loyalty because of:
- opponent?s playing cards.
- winning combat vs creatures (game text rule: if XX wins a combat, gain 1 loyalty for example).
- not using loyalty during combat
- not drawing extra cards.

I hope this will create a cause and effect gameplay, where players are forced to respond to opponent's actions and cards. Increasing interaction and preventing too much sitting back and doing my own thing.

Another cool option would be to have the following rule:
Start of each turn, each player may EITHER draw one card or gain 2 loyalty. making it easier for players gunning for that 20 loyalty.. all needs testing of course.

I think the basis is here, and once I tested some combat scenarios, i will outline the rules, create sample cards and we can lackey it up to test.

""EDIT"": Awesome ART there eyerouge. Can?t wait to see the final product!

EDIT 2: Another thing I forgot to include: I want to see a game where players are able to draw and play lots of cards. Not seeing the game go up in smoke after only drawing 4 cards or so, just because I drew a crappy hand. cards must flow and I would like to see each game end with both players fearing for their lives because their draw deck is almost empty. This would mean that both players had all the opportunities they needed to turn the game around. Will this also mean the game might be longer than other card games? perhaps, but I do not see that as a bad thing. If needed, some higher cost cards can be included to "speed" up the end game.

I've tested that sort of resource system in some of my prototype games chokehold.  What it usually leads to is players not playing cards they otherwise would want to.  A chief rule in game design is to make sure you aren't making players do something they don't want to.  In this case you are making them play cards (they want to do that) but punishing them by giving the other player more life and more resources.

It can work if the game forces play somehow, but the rules I've seen for this don't.  Once I get enough forces out I'll just never play another card, it doesn't benefit me in any way, if my opponent keeps playing they are just getting closer to dieing.  It's like casting a lightning helix on yourself and letting the opponent get the life!

It may work if you make it so the resource isn't your life total, that way it's not *as* risky to play cards, but it will still hurt a little.

: xchokeholdx


I wrote an extensive answer and got 2h wasted when the page (or maybe it was FF) reloaded/did some magic to the page and it all became a cybermemory. This time around I'm writing this in gEdit & posting it once done, but I'll be more direct and won't go into long explanations due to time & patience. So please, don't take this as me being harsh or unfriendly - I'm just still traumatized over the loss ;)

1. The resource system you suggest = double the work & administration. When I pay for _my_ cards & manage my own resources it also entails that the opponent has to manage his.

2. The system is also _maybe_ (with strong maybe here) too complicated: It would be simpler if what I paid equals what my opponent gets. I agree on that your suggested way of handling it with 2 variables (one for my cost, one for opponents gain) does indeed lead to more balance control and wider scope of resource handling. However, I think that it can be accomplished easily with other means instead if you'd choose to go with 1 variable instead of 1.

3. What happens when a player has 18 victory points (loyalty) - what incentive does his/her opponent have to play any card at all at that point, since playing them would result in loss of the game? Sure, there could be cards that cost/give 0 loyalty, but woyld they be a 30-50% of the game cards? And what would this mean if I was in that situation - I'm almost losing the game, I have powercards, I "can" play them, but if I do I will lose for sure. It seems to me it "ties up" the losing player when the opponent comes close to winning. (This crique resembles the one already given, which I also agree with, but it's form the other side)

4. I agree on it being a good call to strive to _not_ use the MTG resource system: Whatever the benefits of the MTG R-system (primarliy balancing between factions in meta game + balancing power of individual cards)  are it can be done in other & less tedious ways, and also without wasting 20-30% of the deck on resource realted cards.

5. Fully agree on keeping the number of "states" in the game low: A game that is heavy on administration will get less number of players. As simple as that. While I myself, and a lot of fellow nerds in all size shapes & colours, may enjoy complex games that take a day to a week to complete, the goal with WTactcis is _not_ to create such a game. Nor is it to create a game that plays within normal time but where very much of that time was spent in administering it instead of  _making decisions_ and _thinking_.

6. I'm skeptical that the power-up-with-loyalty while doing battles is a good idea: How often will it be used? If seldom, then make it a card instead. If often, then it prolongues the game and one of the win-conditions will seldom be triggered. On the other hand, it sure is an interesting concept worth testing, and I was born a skeptic so it doesn't matter much what I think =)

7. Placing cards (used resources) below the draw deck all the time is not smooth. It makes players constantly fiddle with the deck, lifting it, and sliding in cards non-stop. Instead I suggest you use another pile: The recycle/karma/resource graveyard-pile. Whenever a card is used up as resource put it _on top_of that pile. You may never look through the pile or re-arrange it unless a card tells you so. When your draw deck is deplted the recycle-pile becomes your drawdeck, and thus a new recycle pile will soon be born. When draw deck depletes and you have no recycle pile to replace it with you lose the game. All in all, this = much less administering.

8. I'll stop whining about you putting stuff in the wiki and will count on you doing that, as well as mailing me when it's time to playtest anything =) I'm free another month and then I will be much harder to come by as I'll only have time on weekends, so please make it happen as soon as you get the chance. (That said, IRL always comes first =)

9. Thanks for the art praises, but I don't create the art myself - I "only" pay for it. Sadly art is an expensive deal and I will likley only afford one faction (elves + friends), but the rest will be done as soon as others chip in with donations. Luckily this doesn't affect us creating the game as we can use placeholdes and simply replace them with the finished art when it becomes created. (We have pieces for 120 or so creatures and 10 or so new pieces, leaving around 100 pieces left in total for a core set...)

10. Agree on the card usage in a CCG, it should be there, at least in WT. It will be interesting to see if you manage to pull of your tight integreation of the resource system so it really affects the game in all the ways you want it to. It's a real challenge, but probably possible. If it succeeds it would in many ways surpass many other resoruce systems. Tight integration and dependence is good. =)

11. An example of something simillar is DoomTrooper CCG. The game is old as hell but has an beautiful universe, good graphics and feel. Sadly it has a million broken cards and is totally unbalanced. One of it's strengths though is it's resource system. It works as follows:

a) Resources stack/acumulate. What you earn, you keep between turns. The same for what you spend ofc ;)

b) Every creature has a "gold" cost.

c) There are two ways to earn gold: Spending an AP to take gold from the bank and add it to your own gold pile OR to kill an opposing creature.

d) When you kill an opposing creature you get to freely distribute it's cost as x amount of  new gold added to your resource pile and/or y amount of victory points.

That's the basics of the DoomTrooper eco system, described in non-DT-terminology =) It's cool as it creates a direct relation between your resource managment and your path to victory: The more you spend on resources in the game, the less it seems you would win. And vice versa. Some kind of balance is needed to pull it off.

12. I'm not following: Why would the things you have laid out pro-longue the game? Because the game _only_ ends when a deck is empty? If so then yes, it could mean that the game would take longer time to play than others. Question would be how much longer. As for WT, one of the goals is to keep it around 1h in average (or whatever the average time of casual MtG is). If you add 10-20 minutes it's not a big deal if the time addition can be justified and _brings_ something which can't be done in the game in any other way with less time adding. But... one could easily regulate all this by simply lowering the amount of cards allowed in a deck and/or copies allowed of each card. Btw, for WT we must _never_ cross the 60 card per deck line (relates to player economy, competetion etc).

Sorry for the delayed reply. I am very busy right now remodeling my home, as a second mouth-to-feed is on its way (november)...

You guys all were right, the adapted system from the clone wars rules indeed punishes players too much to play cards, thus stalling the game and creating too much of a power swing each turn. This is not what I wanted it to be. I wanted to have a more balanced way. So back to the drawing board I say.

The next idea is basically the same, still with no real resources to use on cards, just the "flow" system (RED cards use up your turn, GREEN cards are "free").

What I am testing now is that for each GREEN card you play, your opponent will gain one influence. RED cards will not have this.

Result: If I want to flood the board and use Swarm tactics (e.g. playing loads of GREEN cards), I will be providing my opponent with a lot of Influence points, which he or she can use. A RED card will not do that, but will use up my turn.

Another side effect to this (and the "old" wrong system above) is that the win condition must change. having 0 or 20 influence will not suffice, as the game interferes too much with it, and it creates big balance swings as well. So currently I have only 1 win-condition, which is having no draw deck. (combat will target player's drawdecks). So I am looking for other win conditions.


I dont know how you feel about this, only having this as win condition.


What I could do is use the locations from Clone Wars as win condition. You know, like winning enough Political points on that planet to earn its Victory points or something.


As soon as the Dust settles in my home (1-2 weeks) I should have loads of time to figure it out.

Thanks for the detailed response.

I ask you to forgive me for not putting much detail into this, usually I would but I'm not in the best of conditions right now.

As to the legality issue:
Creative Commons Free Distribution and Attribution Liscense.
Go find the CCL website and your problems shall be solved. GPL is a fantastic liscense, but it's written for everything this game ISNT so far, and thats a rules set. From my understanding, GPL is used so that publishers can produce NEW CONTENT for an EXISTING GAME whereas you are offering PREEXISTING CONTENT for NO GAME. The idea behind CCL is simple: What I am doing is not for profit. What you are doing is not for profit. Credit me, the liscense adds with a fond farewell and a tip of its hat. The point is, it's written along the ideals of internet distribution in it's ideal sense, where everyone is free to mess around with whatever they bloody well want to so long as proper credit is attached and no money changes hands. There are about five different versions of the lisense, I think my rabbling up at the top may be the proper one or you may need to look into it further. Either way, Liscense wise CCL is DEFINETELY the way to go. GPL seemed like more of a tag, something that you thought "oh, this is vaguely what I'm talking about" but it wasn't quite. And our lovely system designer was right about public domain, it is a grab bag for the money hungry corporate elite or those out there with no ideas of their own looking to score a few bucks. The way to go with this project is CCL, look into it, drop existing label, done.

Once more, sorry, mind not in the best of conditions at the moment.

xchokeholdx:

QuoteSorry for the delayed reply. I am very busy right now remodeling my home, as a second mouth-to-feed is on its way (november)...

It's ok. :) All have real things to handle in their lives, it's even a point in the project's philosophy that all those things come first. Work on the rules when you get a chance to.

QuoteThe next idea is basically the same, still with no real resources to use on cards, just the "flow" system (RED cards use up your turn, GREEN cards are "free").

What I am testing now is that for each GREEN card you play, your opponent will gain one influence. RED cards will not have this.

Result: If I want to flood the board and use Swarm tactics (e.g. playing loads of GREEN cards), I will be providing my opponent with a lot of Influence points, which he or she can use. A RED card will not do that, but will use up my turn.

For what purpose would the influence points be used? They are not resources to pay cards with, or are they? (Maybe they are only used to pay activated abilities etc?)  Or are they still the same as Victory Points?

QuoteI have only 1 win-condition, which is having no draw deck. (combat will target player's drawdecks). So I am looking for other win conditions.

Having just 1 win condition isn't necessarily a bad thing, in the same sense having several of them doesn't have to translate to a good thing. I also don't think that the no draw deck-condition is a bad one. The only draw back, and it's maybe a huge one depending on the size of the deck, is that the game would probably always take longer to finish than a game that offered other conditions (as well).

QuoteWhat I could do is use the locations from Clone Wars as win condition. You know, like winning enough Political points on that planet to earn its Victory points or something.

"Mission" cards (or Quest cards as they would be more thematically called in WTactics) are a possibility, as well as "location" cards, and could very well work as win conditions. Only problem I foresee with them is that if players put them into their drae deck we could end up with many games where the players just pursue their own internal goals (succeeding with the quest) and that, since the quests could be very different, it could lead to weird situations where player interaction is minimal and it could all be compared with yourself against a timer.

"Soft" win conditions (using cards etc, like suggested here) seem also to be way harder to balance than "hard" win conditions (those identified by the core rules).

I think the problems with figuring out multiple win conditions and making them not work symmetrical/synergical in a positive way is a really tough one when creating rules. And I also think that it is the only time they should be around - when being the leader towards one of them means that you are not, at the same time, the leader towards the other.

So, we have the problem of making actions in the game to not make you the leader in more than one win condition at the time, and then we have the problem of still having to put a red thread between the player interactions and the win conditions, so we don't create a game where the players can just pursue different win conditions and seldom interact.

VladShadeu

Quote
I ask you to forgive me for not putting much detail into this, usually I would but I'm not in the best of conditions right now.

I think it was enough of detail to deliver your point. Hopefully you'll also be in a better state soon.

Quote
. GPL is a fantastic liscense, but it's written for everything this game ISNT so far, and thats a rules set. /../ Either way, Liscense wise CCL is DEFINETELY the way to go. GPL seemed like more of a tag, something that you thought "oh, this is vaguely what I'm talking about" but it wasn't quite. And our lovely system designer was right about public domain, it is a grab bag for the money hungry corporate elite or those out there with no ideas of their own looking to score a few bucks. The way to go with this project is CCL, look into it, drop existing label, done.

I'll try to keep this equally brief, as it's a very interesting topic and I'm sure we could discuss it plenty:

1. I define "the game" as the "whole" and "finished" product. Meaning, a game, as I understand it, is not only the ruleset, but also it's cards, the artwork on them and everything else that it offers "in the package". This is especially true seen from the end users (players) perspective, and the way a normal player understands the terminology. Either everything in a game could be licensed using one and the same license or several licenses, or, some of it's parts could be licensed using one license, and other parts using another. These options seem to be both very legally viable, and all have their pros and cons.

2. Reason for why I went with the GPL for the whole game, this far, is that 120 of our art pieces are under the GPL. That is nothing that I can change, nor will I break the law by re-licensing them to anything else but a later GPL version. Thus, those 120 cards, must probably be licensed under the GPL. That however, doesn't prohibit us from licensing the rest of the cards in the game under whatever licenses we want.

3. As for the CC: The one I'm looking into is the CC-BY-SA license. I will, as soon as I have understood it fully/more than I do currently, think about using it AND the GPL licenses for all our new cards (meaning, all except the 120 pieces mentioned above). Thus, every card in the game will have it's own license. But, all cards will have open licenses, making the game fully legal and modable etc. Doing this is, from what I have seen, legal and problem free. The only important thing to remember about it is that "the game" has no license. Every component of it has it's own license(s). Meaning, the rules can be released using one, the cards using another etc. To the player all of this doesn't matter at all in the end and doesn't show. It doesn't take away any freedoms whatsoever, since I would never go with non-free licenses.

4. As for the public domain, I wouldn't willingly put the game in it, as I don't see what benefit that would have to anyone in the world except for people that want to exploit you/me/whoever contributes to this project. I am an advocate of copyleft. Public domain isn't copyleft, as it allows copyright to be enforced on the derivatives from the public domain.

Quote from: eyerouge on July 14, 2010, 07:03:36 AM

For what purpose would the influence points be used? They are not resources to pay cards with, or are they? (Maybe they are only used to pay activated abilities etc?)  Or are they still the same as Victory Points?

Influence points are indeed used for a lot of cool things:
1. To draw extra card at the end of your turn. (one influence point is one card)
2. To use in combat (one influence point is +1 strength)
3. To pay for abilities on cards in play (Pay 2 influence to do xxxx)

It might be even more beneficial (will test this) to add the following:
RED cards use up your whole turn
GREEN cards you may play as much as you want.

RED cards. You MAY GAIN one influence point when played.
GREEN cards. Opponent MAY GAIN one influence point when played.

for reference: when you gain 1 influence, place the top card of your draw deck face down on the table. When you lose/use 1 influence, place a card from your influence "pool" back underneath your draw deck. So there is no penalty for having 0 or 2, or 14 influence, but if you got a lot of them, Combat becomes a lot easier, even though the 14 face down cards you have (for example) will count towards an empty draw deck. especially late game, any influence you gain might prove fatal. (unless you are able to use it during combat or with abilities).

Other cards can easily be created to trigger of Influence. for example: XX is STR+2 while you have 5 influence or more. YY drains 3 cards if opponent has 4 influence or less, etc..etc..

the nice thing is that Influence now is a resource not tied to the cards you are able to play, but still impacts a lot of things.

Just imagine being able to create a peaceful ranger deck that skips combat each turn while you are unable to get rid of your 34 influence due to that (you are unable to use it in combat). Sure you could draw the cards, but your deck is still 34 cards closer to being empty.

Quote
Having just 1 win condition isn't necessarily a bad thing, in the same sense having several of them doesn't have to translate to a good thing. I also don't think that the no draw deck-condition is a bad one. The only draw back, and it's maybe a huge one depending on the size of the deck, is that the game would probably always take longer to finish than a game that offered other conditions (as well).

Deck size will be standard 60 cards (or even lower if needed). If you add some starting cards and a good starting hand, (8 cards or so), that can easily speed up this win condition. Add to that the extra cards you can draw with the Influence you gain/create, the cards you lose from your draw deck through combat, and the time to complete a game will go down a lot.

Quote"Mission" cards (or Quest cards as they would be more thematically called in WTactics) are a possibility, as well as "location" cards, and could very well work as win conditions. Only problem I foresee with them is that if players put them into their drae deck we could end up with many games where the players just pursue their own internal goals (succeeding with the quest) and that, since the quests could be very different, it could lead to weird situations where player interaction is minimal and it could all be compared with yourself against a timer.

Maybe it will be easier to see with an example. The "main" win condition will be to deplete an opponent's draw deck, but the Mission/location cards make EXCELLENT opportunities for a second win condition, without going into the "solitary deck building" and "less interaction" danger zone:

there may only be ONE location/mission in play at any time. BOTH players will be able to attempt/solve that mission/location to score VP point, or just the card itself (score 5 to win the game, or score xx VP to win the game, still up for testing).

Nice thing is, that EACH player will be able to play a new location/mission when they have one in hand, meaning that the one in play will be discarded. This will be an automatic failsafe for players thinking to just solve a few of their Missions and be done with it. Not if an opponent plays another one which your deck can not handle.

the second ability of having just one location in play is to easily being able to determine who goes first each turn and who has priority. The player owning the location goes first. This can be a deciding factor for the assignment of creatures for combat, for example, so having some locations in your deck would be helpful. Sometimes you want to go first, sometimes you want to go second to see what creatures your opponent plays.

Players will use locations, not only to be able to go first (assigning my weak creature with a massive game text to your weak creature is good I hear), but also to prevent somewhat my opponent going for a VP win with their missions (yeah, solve THAT mission sucker!), AND it automatically provides an "out" for when the game stalls (yeah, that decking thing does not work so good, lets try something else while I am at it.)

Try to see it this way:

"hmm, my opponent already has 12 VP, and is about to solve another mission. Maybe I should play that difficult mission card in my hand, but that will mean that I have to play first next turn, so my opponent can easier react to the creature(s) I play that turn, but on the other hand, I do get to assign first this turn, so that will be helpful." Gotta love decision making!

Locations/missions will of course also be tied to the Flow! (creating influence and having RED/GREEN ones).

Just to be sure, there must be no mix of missions and locations cards, just one. Maybe another name will do: Global Event? Obstacle card? any name will do.

Quote
So, we have the problem of making actions in the game to not make you the leader in more than one win condition at the time, and then we have the problem of still having to put a red thread between the player interactions and the win conditions, so we don't create a game where the players can just pursue different win conditions and seldom interact.

with the additional "location/misson" cards I described above not. Player will still play creatures (even if it are just RED ones), to drain cards from an opponent?s draw deck. Being able to solve/take control of a misson/location card is a nice way to have not only a second win condition, but also to keep the game flowing forward. For example: Having a lot of defensive creatures is a nice way to prevent cards being drained from your draw deck, but it does not prevent your opponent from completing 5 missions/getting xx VP's, because you can only control what missions are in play on a limited basis, and stocking up too many missions in your deck is a sure road to losing the game. A fine balance needs to be found.

For example, a mission could read: use (1) influence. If you control 5 or more RED creatures, complete this mission.
Adding a VP victory point to the card is optional, but could be used for balancing issues.

"solved" missions are put to the side for easy reference (get to 5 missions and win, or to 10-20 Vp and win). No need to write stuff down, just a basic 2+3+1+2=8 VP on cards easily visible on the table.

Solving a mission for example might be a RED action (thus spending your whole turn to do so). that is no problem is you are doing missions, but it will be a problem for your draw deck, as your opponent will still be able to play creatures and "drain" the living hell out of your draw deck.

solving a mission could also have another "cost" to it, like forfeiting all assignments for that turn or needing to have and lose 4 influence. This would mean that Solving missions will come at a price for the other win condition (no draw deck), creating a nice balance for players thinking to be smart and focusing on just one win condition.

the no-draw-deck win condition will be the main one, which all players more or less automatically work towards. the solving missions win condition is a second win condition which users might be tempted to take one every now and then, for whatever reason that might be (losing on the other win condition, and going for a last resort attempt for example).

So will players add Locations to their deck? I think they will, for various reasons already explained:
1. To be able to go first with assigning creatures.
2. To prevent an easy mission win from my opponent
3. To have a second win con if needed.

if this fails, a simple deck building rule can easily be created (your deck needs to have xx missions)

will do some rough testing when I get that stupid Ceiling Fan to stop wobbling!

Saw you finally started to add the rules to the wiki. I've PM:ed you about that in here. Please feel free to proceed with whooping up the cards as well =)

Based on the rules in the wiki 4:th of August 2010:

1.
The players have to have locations for 20 or more points in their decks, but there is no requirement that actually guarantees that even 25% of them (10 p worth) or any at all are every played. Imagine a case where one player has a strategy to include them, but not really use them, hence, by doing that making the other player dependent of his/her own locations and getting them in hand. (Now, that means there are only 20 p of locations in play ever, if that player playes every one of them, has none of them milled etc).

Is this a problem for one of the win conditions? It seems so, because there's no inherent "hard" rule forcing the player to have locations in play, or is there? And even if there was, a player could just go with the minimal point giving ones in play (sure, it would eat up more % of the deck, but it's a strategy that seems to be possible...)

2.
"If two or more game effects happen at the same time, the person who controls a Location decides which effect resolves first. "

Can more than one location be controlled? Can both players control an equal amount of locations? If so, this needs a minor tweak.

3.
"Death after combat. Originally the rules allowed for the loser(s) of a combat to remain in play."

Won't that clog up the table with more and more creatures in play on both sides with each turn that passes by?  Here I guess it's important to estimate how many creatures that will enter play in average each turn, even if it's hard to know that.

4. "Life points. If the game turns out to be completely clean of micro management, maybe this could be added and tested."

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. That and KISS ;) If you actually manage to create a CCG with no loss of strategy and minimal micro it's very good design. You shouldn't add stuff just to increase the level of micro for the sake of having it there ;) If you add it, only do so  if it add's strategic depth to the game, or is necessary for some other reason. 

1.

Both players are forced to have 20 points of locations. so in total a single player could in theory get 40 VP. Since it is obligatory to start the game with a Location in play, there will always be one in play, since the rules force you to replay a new one when the current one is conquered.

So starting with an impossible to conquer location is a good strategy? yes, if your deck is geared towards the other win con. But don?t forget that I am able to simply play an easy to conquer location to have yours discarded.

A rule tweak IS needed here, since your opponent will be able to replay that imposible to conquer location after you completed yours. So the rules will change into:

old text:
Use game text on a Location in play to conquer it

You announce you want to conquer the current Location. You check any requirements and costs that action may have and pay them. Once resolved, you place that Location card to the side to keep track of how many Victory Points you have amassed during the course of the game. After that, you check its Flow to see if you are able to use more actions for that turn. The owner of that Location must immediately play a new Location card from Hand, Draw deck or Graveyard (their own choice). If he or she is unable to, you may play a new Location from your hand, Draw deck or Graveyard.

new text:
Use game text on a Location in play to conquer it

You announce you want to conquer the current Location. You check any requirements and costs that action may have and pay them. Once resolved, you place that Location card to the side to keep track of how many Victory Points you have amassed during the course of the game. After that, you check its Flow to see if you are able to use more actions for that turn. The conqueror of that Location must immediately play a new Location card from Hand, Draw deck or Graveyard (their own choice). If he or she is unable to, his or her opponent must play a new Location from your hand, Draw deck or Graveyard.

Forcing an opponent to DO play locations, albeit only to hinder my Conquering deck!

2. Nope. Just ONE location Active and in play. As soon as a player plays a new one, it is discarded. Or when a player conquers it, it is replaced.

3. Yep, that is why now the rules read: lose a combat and you?re out of here! (magic style combat).

4. yep, but maybe an exception could always be created: If this creature loses a combat, place a token on it. It may not be discarded from play unless it has 2 tokens. A nice a simple way to work around "life"

One might wonder why a separate "location" deck is not more appropriate, and rightly so.

The biggest PRO would be that this win condition can always be completed by both players, as the availability of Locations is easier and more structured. A few simple rule tweaks would allow players to "play" cards from this Location deck for example.

I does however on the otherhand, take away the focus of the game, and that is not what I am looking for. I want the ability to win the game with 20 VP points to be a more or less "secondary" win con, like with each three games you?ll play, 2 are won by decking your opponent, while the third is won with a conquered Location victory.

I do not want to force players to have a side deck of X cards, while their main deck has a totally different goal (in this case: Conquering locations vs decking)

Note that a player is forced to have a MINIMUM of 20 VP worth of Locations in his deck. This could be just a few high VP Locations, or a bunch of easy to do lower VP Locations.
If you want to focus on this win con, you still can, by simply having MORE than 20 VP worth of locations in your deck, so you wont have to "rely" as much on some of your opponent?s Locations to conquer. So if you find out that most of your opponent's use difficult to conquer location, you could simply play more locations yourself next time to have a higher chance of drawing and playing one (discarding your opponent?s), and include more than 20VP on Locations in your deck. How much is a good figure? I don't know, but I think a good mix between easy to do Locations (1-3 VP), a bunch of so-so midrange ones (3-4 VP), and one or 2 big finishers (4-5 VP) for endgame purposes. And anywhere between 20 and 25-35 VP. depending on the type of build of course. Meta will figure this one out for themselves. maybe 20 will do fine.

On the other hand, if you want to focus on winning by Decking your opponent, you could just use (example) 4x 5 VP Locations and still have 56 cards in your deck working towards that goal, no losses there.

There will be OF COURSE creatures,equipment, artifact and tactics that will help you with this, for example:

Compass of the Soiled Sands
Equipment
(X) Equip to target Undead creature you control. Each time a (X) Location is played, you may gain 1 Power.
(X) Gain 2 Power.
+0/+1

Wanderer of the Road
Creature
Drain (1)
(X) when Wanderer of the Road enters play, search your domain for a Location card, reveal it and take it into hand. Shuffle your domain
(X) Gain 1 Power for each conquered Location target player controls.
(O) Gain 1 Power.
1/3

"whoa!", you might say, Gaining 2 cards by discard one other (Power text on the Compass): "Gain 2 Power", is broken and will lead to combo and imbalanced decks.

Nope, because if you read the rules, you will find out that doing so would take up your whole turn ((X) means RED flow), no more playing cards for you this turn , and even though you can draw 2 extra cards at the end of your turn, you successfully drained yourself 4 cards closer to losing the game. (1 from discarding the compass, 2 from drawing power, and one because you spend your whole turn and draw a card start of next turn)

that, together with losing cards from your domain by losing combats will go a lot faster than you want to.

for example, a card that lets you discard the top 5 cards of your draw deck to gain 10 power might (and is probably) a great card, but it also brought you 1/4th closer to your death.

playing locations form everywhere
Your suggestion is that a location should be playable "from Hand, Draw deck or Graveyard". This insures that the locations won't be "lost" by milling, and is well.

My concern here is that it adds administration to the game while it's on-going: You'd need to search your grave and/or drawdeck whenever you wouldn't have a location in hand. The problem is that you would also have to shuffle the draw deck each time this happened (I assume, if there are random draws in your game, which I believe there is).

If it was my baby - and notice I'm aware it's not and fully understand if you have a totally different view of it - I would have done it differently and like this instead:

• Each player has to have a total worth of x location cards with him/her to the game.
• Only 1-2 copies of each location is allowed in your location pile.
• No upper or lower limit of the number of location cards one might bring.
• Each player has them in his/her location pile. The piles are placed in the center(?) between the players.
• The pile if faced down, and the order of the cards are predetermined by the player before the game starts.
• Both players flip the top card face up of their pile, and also place the card on the top of the pile, now facing up.
• Both players can pursue to conquer each other's locations if they wanted to.
• When a location is conquered, it's removed for points keeping purposes, and the next location in the pile is turned face up.
• A player can discard his/her own location and make the next one in his/her pile appear by some kind of punishing cost. (I.e. mill 3 cards from draw deck)
• When location pile is emptied you don't lose the game. Exactly what happens then is hazy to me right now, but I'd be happy with "nothing" as an answer.

The benefits of the above are that you don't have to do searching and re-shuffling all the time. Also, you don't get card draws that are locations, when you'd want and expect something else, which you would do most of the time when you were using your draw deck, even in your suggested system. Another benefit is that the above is very open for inserting "mission/quest cards" etc as well, should you want to. A third is that it brings even more meta to the game - the order of the cards - how you will place them, will suddenly also be an issue, if you  go with the pre-determined model I suggest (it could ofc be swapped out for a random shuffled pile instead).

Drawbacks are unclear to me: It doesn't even take more space on the table, since the location card should be placed on top of the pile. I guess one could be that now a player has to have different boxes for his decks (draw deck and location deck) or a separator in the same box, but that's also not true: Just put the location pile faced forward against the draw deck's face forward, and separating the cards from each other even when they share the same box is instantly and easily done, without any extra effort or equipment. 

Quote from: eyerouge on August 05, 2010, 08:03:04 AM
playing locations form everywhere
Your suggestion is that a location should be playable "from Hand, Draw deck or Graveyard". This insures that the locations won't be "lost" by milling, and is well.

My concern here is that it adds administration to the game while it's on-going: You'd need to search your grave and/or drawdeck whenever you wouldn't have a location in hand. The problem is that you would also have to shuffle the draw deck each time this happened (I assume, if there are random draws in your game, which I believe there is).

If it was my baby - and notice I'm aware it's not and fully understand if you have a totally different view of it - I would have done it differently and like this instead:

• Each player has to have a total worth of x location cards with him/her to the game.
• Only 1-2 copies of each location is allowed in your location pile.
• No upper or lower limit of the number of location cards one might bring.
• Each player has them in his/her location pile. The piles are placed in the center(?) between the players.
• The pile if faced down, and the order of the cards are predetermined by the player before the game starts.
• Both players flip the top card face up of their pile, and also place the card on the top of the pile, now facing up.
• Both players can pursue to conquer each other's locations if they wanted to.
• When a location is conquered, it's removed for points keeping purposes, and the next location in the pile is turned face up.
• A player can discard his/her own location and make the next one in his/her pile appear by some kind of punishing cost. (I.e. mill 3 cards from draw deck)
• When location pile is emptied you don't lose the game. Exactly what happens then is hazy to me right now, but I'd be happy with "nothing" as an answer.

The benefits of the above are that you don't have to do searching and re-shuffling all the time.

Agreed, it makes for a more "cleaner" game in first sight. but what if I do not want to focus on conquering Locations, but on Decking my opponent instead? then it seems strange to me that I am still forced to turn a Location around every now and then. I do not want to force players into playing ALL win conditions.

QuoteAlso, you don't get card draws that are locations, when you'd want and expect something else, which you would do most of the time when you were using your draw deck, even in your suggested system.

Not quite true, as i could easily use those drawn Locations to create Power out of them (each card has a Power number that lets you create power). If I plan my deck well, I could even use only (O) Locations so it wont even set me back one turn!.

QuoteAnother benefit is that the above is very open for inserting "mission/quest cards" etc as well, should you want to. A third is that it brings even more meta to the game - the order of the cards - how you will place them, will suddenly also be an issue, if you  go with the pre-determined model I suggest (it could ofc be swapped out for a random shuffled pile instead).

true, it could increase deckbuilding, but it also might include sudden losses because "those 2 Locations weren't supposed to be in that order, so now my deck is ruined!!".. rage quit etc.. only because a little mistake in Location ordering.
I do like the fact that we can add other types of effects to the Location Pile, like flipping over a Thunderstorm effect, killing half a dozen creatures unexpectedly.

Quote
Drawbacks are unclear to me: It doesn't even take more space on the table, since the location card should be placed on top of the pile. I guess one could be that now a player has to have different boxes for his decks (draw deck and location deck) or a separator in the same box, but that's also not true: Just put the location pile faced forward against the draw deck's face forward, and separating the cards from each other even when they share the same box is instantly and easily done, without any extra effort or equipment.

There are several drawbacks which you might not see on the first glimpse:
? You need to have another way to figure out who has priority, as there are now 2 Locations in play..
Scratch that, we can still have just one in play, with players alternately flipping a new one.. this opens up a lot of ideas..  :-*

I still need to find a way to be able to let players change the Location. as your are not "playing" them from your hand, a new way must be found (to prevent a very difficult to conquer location blocking the whole game from the start). Maybe adding an "Unrest Step" to the rules is an idea, see below:

So I suggest the following change:
? Players bring to the game a side deck of x Location cards, amounting to 20 VP points each, in total 40. Minimums and maximums of numbers might need to be fixed too, needs testing.
? both players (this needs testing if it works ok) determine the order of their Location deck.
? both players place their own deck in the center of the table, Separately from each other, not shuffle into one Location deck.
? Randomly decide which player "flips" the First Location from their Location deck. that player goes first and determines order of effects and assigns first as well.
? Players can use Power during the Unrest step to change the Location:
Unrest Step:
Starting with the player controlling a Location (the one active in play), Players use turns to change that Location if they want to.
Each player may use x power, where x is the Location?s unrest value (new value added to the Location to add balancing) to change the Location. If a player chose to do so, that Location is then immediately placed face down underneath the controlling players' Location deck and a new Location is flipped face up from the Location deck of the player using the Unrest option.

this creates another push for players to create Power, and it increases interaction and strategy. I like it.
I hate to have a side deck needed, but I can see that it clears up a lot of issues and game play, besides, with just 4x 5VP Locations, it could be a very minimal side deck if you wanted to.

Besides conquer text on locations, since they now do not have the option to gain power with (not in hand anymore to use), maybe we can add other stuff to it, like:

Lost Road to Wesnoth
Location
Unrest: 1
when Lost road to Wesnoth is flipped, players may return one card from their graveyard to hand.
Conquer: Use 1 Power and remove the top 4 cards of your domain from the game.
3 VP

Not only having just a VP value and a Conquer requirement, but actual effects on the game as well. Hopefully it all fits into the template.

I still need to see how and if the Flow can be incorporated into this, as you are not really playing Locations anymore from hand, and it is during a whole other "step" of the game. Maybe when you play the next location and it is a RED flow one, you may not change it anymore.. could work. that way, we can still have other cards that interact with it: If you control a RED location, do Y; If the next Location is a GREEN location, do X; etc etc..
the other issue is that if you create a (lets say) 12 card Location deck, with only 1 and 2 VP Locations, that your Domain (draw deck) is reduced to only 48 cards. I am not sure if that should stay that way, as it sort of punishes you for a certain strategy.. maybe the Location deck should be totally seperate from the draw deck.
Draw deck: 50 cards (to offset the added amount from the Location deck (deckboxes, sleeves, need for more than 60 card in total, etc))
Location deck: 20VP worth of Locations.

that way, it does not punish you for playing easy to conquer Locations, if that is your "style"...

this all of course, needs testing. But it shows signs of very good playability.

Just a small overview of some sample cards I am about to print to playtest my rules with. I will not go into detailed cards and core strategies here, I only want to see if the rules work.

name   attack   defense   influence   flow   playtext   flow   tactic text   flow   power
Skeleton Warrior   1   1   1   O   When you play Undead Skeleton Warrior, Draw 1 card.   X   Reveal the top 2 cards of your domain. Play all Undead creatures revealed and discard the rest.   O   1
Skeleton Mage   0   2   2   O   Skeleton mage is +1/+0 for each other Undead creature you control   O   Influence: 2   X   2
? Madclops the Wicked   3   2   2   X   When you play Madclops the wicked, Influence: 1.   X   Discard 1 Undead creature you control from play. Gain 1 Power and Revive 3 Undead creatures.    O   1
? Red Baron   2   2   1   O   Discard Red Baron from play when you control 3 or more Creatures   O   Revive 2 Undead Creatures   O   1
Arch the Archer   2   1   1   X   When you play Arch the Archer, Influence: 2   O   Discard 1 undead creature you control from play. Target undead creature is Attack and Influence +3 until the end of this turn   X   2
Skeleton Archer   1   1   1   O   When you play Skeleton Archer, Influence: 1   X   Influence X, where X is the number of Archer creatures you control.   X   1
Axeman   2   2   2   X   Any creature killed by Axeman is removed from the game.   O   Until end of turn, each time you win a combat, revive 1.   X   1

I will give it a few tests with some friends before labeling it my "final" rules submission. What you want to do with it is of course up to the devs of Wtactics. I think the rules are solid enough, and only some minor tweaks like hand size, draws and such should be adjusted. Maybe after the design of the real cards, the VP condition needs to be tweaked to be on par with the "decking" win condition, but that is of course all in hands of the devs. And of course if they choose to go with these rule setting at all.

will update with some testing soon.

Looks interesting. :)

What's done with it (or not) is up to you/whoever that wants to pick it up and develop it further: Currently we're the only two ones on the project, if you leave your rules "in the wild" there's no guarantee somebody will embody them and actually make what you suggest playable by releasing cards for it. (I myself can't, since I believe you have a way better understanding of your system and what the cards should look like in it than i do. I also can't since I'm already occupied with the rules of my own already, eating all spare time.)

The cards themselves are a such crucial part of the dev. of a CCG that it's hard for anyone to evaluate the system unless an actual game can be played with it. For that to happen in a relevant enough degree I guess it would take between 50 to 100 unique cards, allowing the players some space and actual deck building as well. Also, that kind of playest cardpool will show a greater variety of cards. =)

You have all you need to create card available in the downloads section of our site, including instructions in the README in the package and/or the /trunk.  There's already art for at least 120+ creatures. Also some art for non-creature cards, and, new art is coming in all the time.

If you want to create cards that you lack art for just create them anyway without art - that way they at least would exist and playtestable, and the art would be placed once it was done, in the future.

I don't mean to promote another game website but since your looking for some rules you could try out something

Excuse me, do you mean that you are doing a project about fantasy card game, you have fine art, but you need an idea, and a ruleset?