Here is the art - you do the rules.

[Just Mick]

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

[BuddhaJ]

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.

[eyerouge]

Cyrus:

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."

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.

If 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).

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.

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:

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...

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).

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.

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.)

[Cyrus]

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.

[Just Mick]

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.

[xchokeholdx]

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?

[eyerouge]

Cyrus:

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.

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:

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

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.

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

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.

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:

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:

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?

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

it 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 ..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.

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.

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.

I 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.

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...

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.

what 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.

do 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. 

or 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.

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?

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.

[xchokeholdx]

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..

[Just Mick]

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.

[xchokeholdx]

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.

[Dragoon]

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

[xchokeholdx]

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.

[eyerouge]

xchokeholdx:

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

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:

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

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.

[Dragoon]

• 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.

[xchokeholdx]

• 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]