New ideas, 2013 edition

[Cyrus]

One simultaneous turns mechanic I developed was the 'Trap' mechanic as a way to make instants fair in this kind of turn format. One of your available action is to "set a trap" which lets you play a card face down for 1 gold. You can later activate it in response to something. This way you have to sacrifice time now (playing a card face down doesn't progress your game) for time later.

Anyway that was just a random idea. You're game is pretty tough for me to get to grips with.

The trap idea is actually really cool. I made a card type called Response that can be played during any player's actions. Character abilities that can be used this way are written "Response:" then the effect.
What is it you're not getting from the game? Do you not understand the core mechanics, don't think they'll work, something else? I should write up a little rules document to get things clear for myself too. I've been working on some demo decks so hopefully I'll get to test this bad boy out soon

[Wisp]

I'm not sure, I think it's just a bit alien to me. I can't conceptualise what it should feel like to play.

Part of me thinks it might be a good idea to keep a turn structure, just to make the game more streamlined. Not sure though...

[Cyrus]

Yes, as new and cool as it may be, a normal turn might be preferable, we shall see after some testing. I do feel like it might tend to make the losing player really feel like they're losing, and that's no fun. I've got a bunch of days off so I'll try to finish up another deck, got one done last night

[Wisp]

At the start of the turn each player draws X cards and gains Y resources. The each player alternates performing the following actions
-play a card
-dispatch a character or bring a character back to hq
-use a character ability
-score a point
-start a skirmish
When a each player passes successively, a new turn starts.

Having beginning and points means less micromanaging to care of while doing the interactive parts of the gameplay. This still keeps the action-by-action gameplay style.

I'll be available to test often enough,

[Cyrus]

That might not be a bad way to handle it, and it makes "until end of turn" effects both possible and strong. I'm making the cards with purposefully vague wording at this point so I can test them under a variety of different rules, I will definitely test this way out.

I've been thinking of adding a Battleground card that starts in play, can be assigned to like an objective, but allows more direct interaction with your opponent. The only problem being that I don't want it to detract from the objectives enough that people basically end up playing magic but with a card in the middle of the table. So, the rewards for having a strong force at the battleground have to be great enough that it is worth worrying about, but also not so great that players will just stockpile there and ignore their objectives. Gotta think on this one for a bit...

[Wisp]

How about each objective is its own location, at which opponents can also go to stop kill your dudes.

[Cyrus]

How about each objective is its own location, at which opponents can also go to stop kill your dudes.

This is already how it works, players can assign characters to ANY objective, yours or your opponent's, and score points from them as well. This is an extremely key point to how the whole thing will work.

You can assign your dudes to an opponent's objective, and many dudes will have Spoils that activate whenever they win a skirmish. So, you assign a guy with "Spoils: Opponent must unassign one character from this objective" and a couple other guys with high power, and start a skirmish (you win a skirmish by having more total power assigned to the objective than your opponent. You start skirmishes at objectives and only characters assigned to that objective participate).
When you win the skirmish they'll have to put one of their dudes from that objective back to their kingdom, and to assign them again they'll have to pay again as well.

This is where all the interaction comes in. Sure, a player could build a deck that hoped to mostly not interact with the opponent, but if their defenses were down there would be nothing stopping their opponent from messing up their entire plan with just a handful of guys.
So far I've been designing with the mindset that most characters will be unique, so that decks will mostly consist of a couple different groups you're trying to assemble throughout the game, one group for scoring objectives and the other for keeping your opponent from doing the same. You can go more or less in either direction (more scoring or more invasive), but if you can't score any points your opponent will most likely win (when a deck runs out the player with the highest score wins), and if you can't defend yourself or put pressure on your opponent they will probably win as well.

Maybe all this clears up how the game is supposed to work a little bit? I know its all been in random idea-dump form so it's probably hard to visualize

[Wisp]

It seems a little complex. I have a simpler idea but it's probably not quite what you are going for.

[Dan55]

What prevents one player from including NO objectives in his deck, and gaining all his points from his opponent?  This allows more space for combat power in his deck.  What happens when both players try this.

[Cyrus]

Probably a rule saying that you have to include a certain number of points worth of objectives in your deck. Netrunner does this and it actually adds a lot to deck building.

@Wisp this is like the simplest card game idea I've ever had I'm thinking of dropping the whole back and forth action thing though, even within a turn structure, because I think that makes the learning curve really steep and might be frustrating for anyone but a math wizard to really master.

[Wisp]

Poke

[Cyrus]

I should stop procrastinating...

[Wisp]

I was supposed to start procrastinating a little while ago but I haven't got around to it yet...