Analysing some popular combat systems

[Typherion]

So a long time ago when I asked for feedback on the CCG I'm designing called Summoner, some people helpfully suggested that my combat system needed more work. While I think it's now in a much better place, I thought I might as well share my reviews on combat in some popular games to see what others think.

The brief analysis considers mainly whether each combat system favours the attacking player or defending player and what kind of game play each system encourages as a result.

Disclaimer: I have played most of these games, but not all or extensively, so some of these observations are more speculative than others.

Magic
Creatures can't attack the turn they enter play.
The attacking player declares attackers but not their attack targets.
The defending player declares blockers and their block targets.
Attackers and blockers deal damage to each other simultaneously.
Damage is removed at the end of each turn.

WoW
Creatures can't attack the turn they enter play.
The attacking player declares attackers and their attack targets.
The defending player may declare any creatures with the protector ability as blockers and their block targets.
Attackers and blockers deal damage to each other simultaneously.
Damage is permanent unless healed.

Shadow Era
Creatures can't attack the turn they enter play.
The attacking player declares attackers and their attack targets.
The defending player can't be attacked while they control a creature with the defender ability.
Attackers deal damage to defenders first, then if the defender survives, it deals damage to the attacker.
Damage is permanent unless healed.

Battle Spirits
Creatures can't attack the turn they enter play.
The attacking player declares attackers but not their attack targets.
The defending player declares blockers and their block targets.
The creature with greater power destroys the one with lesser power.
Creatures aren't damaged ? they are either dead or alive.

Yu Gi Oh
Creatures can attack the turn they enter play.
The attacking player declares attackers and their attack targets.
The defending player can't be attacked while they control a creature.
The creature with greater power destroys the one with lesser power.
Creatures aren't damaged ? they are either dead or alive.

Analysis
Combat in Magic generally favours the defending player, because they can determine which creatures battle each other. This advantage is increased by the fact that damage isn't permanent and wears off at the end of each turn, allowing large creatures to block smaller ones without weakening over time. Uncertainty is introduced by the possibility of players using instant spells that can often modify power or toughness of creatures, or cause some other effect, creating the potential for reversals.

Combat in WoW slightly favours the attacking player, because they generally choose which creatures battle, but both creatures will always deal permanent damage to each other so the advantage is lessened. Attacking other creatures is likely rare, as it only serves to slow down the damage race for both players. However, players can create card advantage by using larger creatures to destroy smaller ones, and even though the larger creature loses health, it will still deal its full damage at least once more before being destroyed because damage is simultaneous. However, once damaged, it becomes possible for players to use smaller creatures to trade with wounded larger creatures. Like in Magic, players can use instant abilities to upset an opponent's plans in combat.

Combat in Shadow Era greatly favours the attacking player because they can choose which creatures battle. In addition, attackers deal damage first, allowing them to destroy smaller creatures without taking any damage themselves. This is compounded by the fact that creatures are unable to attack the turn they are summoned. Thus creatures with high attack can keep the opponent's field clear of threats. Defending players get no value out of their creatures when they are destroyed in a single attack. Therefore, this system also greatly favours larger creatures over smaller ones, because smaller creatures must suicide into larger ones in order to do any damage to them. Furthermore, there are no instant spells in this game, making combat much easier to predict.

Combat in Battle Spirits favours the defending player, because they can choose which creatures battle each other and also have priority for playing spells during the flash step before an attack resolves. Creatures never exist in a wounded state; they either live or die as a result of battle. Because of this system, it would be rare for a defending player to block the attack of a larger creature by using a smaller creature unless they needed to stall for more time in order to win. Also note that Battle Spirits does not use a stack or chain for resolving effects. Instead, spells resolve as soon as the cost is paid.

Combat in Yu Gi Oh slightly favours the attacking player because they can choose which creatures battle each other. However, the defending player may have monsters face-down such that it becomes risky for the attacking player to attack them. Clever use of defensive monsters can lure an opponent into overextending by playing too many attacking creatures, only to then have them all be destroyed later. Trap cards and Quick Spells are usable as instant effects to further make combat uncertain.

As always, I welcome any thoughts or comments you may have.

[Trevor]

Interesting analysis. I would add that a simple system with the least overhead is best. Magic doesn't need to use damage counters, and that's very convenient. WoW uses damage counters because wow is based on an mmo which uses healing as a major game aspect. (Some wow mmo players do nothing but heal.) So wow tcg needed a system that really reflects that.

"Summoning sickness" is used in a lot of games because it gives players a chance to defend against cards. It also encourages more offense too. For example, if an opponent could cast a creature card on their turn and instantly attack you and kill you, you would be less likely to attack them as much because you are worried about defense. Also, most games that have a "summoning sickness" effect also have an ability that removes this effect. Magic calls it "haste". WoW calls it "ferocity". It's a simple core mechanic that adds a lot of strategy and excitement to games. This is an example of good CCG design.

[Typherion]

While I'm not a fan of summoning sickness personally I can see how it works well in many games, especially Magic. Also, I think it helps with balancing creatures against other card types if the creatures can't attack immediately, depending on the resource system.

Where I think it can be problematic is in games where attacking players get to choose attack targets. In Shadow Era summoning sickness makes it very difficult for a player to catch up if they fall behind because their newly summoned creatures are sitting ducks. But this is really a matter of design goals.

[Turonik]

personally, my favorite combat systems involve players taking turns taking an action in the battle before anything is resolved. It's much more engaging than systems like magic and wow, where it is possible to play cards during "battle"  but usually it's just pretty cut and dry. Nothing against those games mind you, I just find the combat systems of L5R, doomtown, SPycraft, and 7th seas to be more battles as there's sensually multiple characters on each side and players use actions to win a fight  when it seems like they'd lose. It's more like a game of chess to me.

As for summoning sickness, it depends on the game really. Some are designed for it and it works well for it (ie game where both players share a mutual turn) But in games like magic and wow(and various others) the sickness works to prevent too cheap of deaths via top decking(cheap deaths still happen but it's a way to help curb it) and allowing the opponent a chance to  put up some sort of defense to the new creature.

If anybody is interested I can do my own analysis on any of the games I've mentioned.

[Typherion]

Sure, I'd be interested to see an analysis of those systems if you wouldn't mind. I don't have much experience with that style of game so it would be cool to know how they work and also what kind of play they encourage.

[Turonik]

Alright  here it goes.

Legend of the Five Rings
the attack phase is before the phase you can play personalities(creatures)
attacking player assigns his infantry(any personality without the cavalry trait) to any of the defending player's provinces(each player starts with 4)
Then defending player assigns infantry.
Attacker assigns cavalry
Defender Assigns cavalry
Attacker then chooses which battles to resolve in which order
Starting with defending player, players take turns using a "battle" action on their cards in play or from their hand.
once both players pass consecutively, the battle is resolved- if defender has higher force then all cards in the attacking army are destroyed, tie results in both sides being destroyed and if the attacker wins destroy the defending army, however if the total force of the attacking army is greater than the defending armies plus the province strength, the province and defending army are destroyed.

Analysis
battles tend to favor defenders unless attacker has cavalry and defender doesn't. However they game has many tools on how to even out the playing field for both sides making battles a very fun experience where winning a battles feels rewarding rather than just dealing damage or losing a creature you didn't care about.

I'll post the others in a little bit but I did the biggest first.

[dboeren]

Adding some more games to the list for future reference...

I play some of the Fantasy Flight LCG's, and "summoning sickness" does not seem to exist in any of them.

Call of Cthulhu
Characters can attack the turn they enter play.
The attacking player declares attackers and their targets (which are the Story cards - not characters or enemy player)
The defending player declares blockers and their targets (again, the Story cards)
Five combat struggles with different effects are resolved in sequence.
Damage is not removed at the end of the turn
First to 5 tokens on a story wins it, there is no benefit to the loser no matter how many tokens they had

A Game of Thrones
Characters can attack the turn they enter play
There are multiple separate combats, up to one of each of three types
The attacking player declares attackers for one combat, but no targets
The defending player declares defenders for that combat
Combat is resolved and the effect applied which is different for each combat type
Damage is not removed at the end of the turn

Netrunner (there isn't really combat, but runs are vaguely similar)
Cards can be used the turn they enter play
The Runner declares a run (attack) on a target location
The defending player sets the location of each defender when it is played, they do not typically move
Combat is resolved but depends more on economy than card strengths or icons
Damage is not removed at the end of the turn

Star Wars
Cards can be used the turn they enter play
There are multiple separate combats
The attacker declares attackers and their target (an Objective card)
The defender declares defenders and their targets (Objective cards they will defend)
There is a blind bidding of cards for initiative and bonus icons
Starting with the initiative winner, combat is resolved by attacking with one character at a time - alternating sides until complete
Different combat icons have different effects
Damage is not removed at the end of the turn

I am not very familiar with LoTR, but I know cards can be used immediately.  However, it's also a co-op game so it may not be all that relevant of an example.  I have not played Warhammer: Invasion.

Personally, I find games with "summoning sickness" to be kind of slow and boring - it seems to encourage the two sides to grind away at each other and reduces the player's ability to engineer surprises or interesting plays when the opponent sees most cards coming a turn ahead.