Do you like interrupt cards in a CCG?

[Turonik]

Well, I always thought that not having a way to know what your opponent might have will make the game depend on guessing instead of strategic planning. So, if the actions are free, will the game become a guessing game instead of a tactical one?

Not really. That's one of the things that keeps it exciting and even nail biting at times. But it still remains tactical since you can still DO things, and just because you can doesn't mean you should (because in l5r you can split attacks so if you go all out in one battle you can still lose all the rest of the battles that turn or just leave your self open  in other attacks since your hand is gone.

A thing to keep in mind about the games that have "free" actions is that they trigger off  the cards you have in play and are not like "Destory target creature." they are like "target a creature you control in battle,  destroy a target attacking creature if they have less attack." And the "creautres" tend to have actions you can use in attacks too. But I'm getting ahead of myself

By the way, you said that every game says that attacking is where the real action takes place but most attacks in games are just eventless motions you go through. Can you explain this a bit? And what is your opinion about real action?

Magic, you just assign attackers, your oppnent assigns blockers, and then maybe somebody plays a spell. And that's the attack. Wow, bleach, duel masters, yugioh, are all like that with countless others. Don't get me wrong, some of those games I have enjoyed. like Bleach but that also had a "boosting system"  so you can discard a card to increase your character's attack or your blocker's.

However in these games, nothing really happens during them except for your opponent  reacting to the attack by playing a card.

But take Legend of the five rings for example. Many of the cards you have in play, have actions you use during battle(the attack phase) ANd I can only use actions from those cards and ones in my hand if I send people into battle. SO I can't just have all my people tapped at home and just play actions on my opponent's stuff while he can't really use any of his actions since I don't have any guys in the battle. You and your opponent take turns taking actions one at a time so you have to plan out your actions carefully since you can't rely on  being able to use all of your actions.

This wasn't always the case, it used to be not a lot of cards had battle actions so attacks weren't as exciting as they are now. Now practically everything has an action so you have plenty of options to use in battle even if your hand is empty since there is no "chump blocking" attacking armies sort of have trample (hard to explain quickly)  having the action on the character means you can do something  with him to either stop the attacker from doing serious damage.

Now the whole tactical thing is mainly seen in games that have "group attacks" but Warlord is still tactical with the use of the rank and file system. I know some don't care for warlord because it uses d20 for attacks, but it's still a fun game based sort of on D&D but is it's own thing.

Anyway, what are the few tactical games that you'd recommend? I would also want their rules so that I can compare them. Thanks.

Legend of the five rings first and foremost. http://rules.l5r.com/Main_Page

7th seas, it's a strange little beast, many of the cards have built in counters but it works since of how you play cards. http://www.chirographum.com/tolenmar/pdfs/7thSea_ccg_rules.pdf

Legend of the burning sands. Sadly this game ended before it really was allowed to mature like l5r did, but it's still nice. http://www.chirographum.com/tolenmar/pdfs/LBS-Awakening-Rules.pdf

Doom town. Great game. http://www.chirographum.com/tolenmar/pdfs/DTrules.pdf

and spycraft and full metal alchemist (both are pretty much the same game except for spycraft being the more advanced of the two. I can't find a rule book online for either of them but send me your email and I'll send them in an email if you'd like.

and for warlord since I'd still consider it tactical but doesn't work in the same sense as do the ones above due. http://www.warlordccg.de/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/4e-rules.pdf

[xchokeholdx]

Interrupts/Instants are cards created to fix broken issues in either the game rules or cards created. I dislike them.

they take away a lot of the strategic element of a game, and create in a lot of cases, a negative "taste" in the mouth of the receiving end.

I prefer to see all the elements in play, and find a way through cards in play to get around that obstacle/problem, instead of simply playing an interrupt card and twarthing my opponent's plans/or help mine.

Not only do you have to be VERY careful not to create too powerful interrupts, just having them will open up a whole can of extra rules discussions, which I personally prefer not to have in a game. (priority, stack, chain, what resolves first, etc..etc..)

Having said that, I do feel that some interrupts, based on Deciphers "Response:" system can be done. They enrich the game, and if a player is good enough, can be anticipated, while general interrupts cannot.

[CCGer]

What do you guys think about Duel Masters? It has no interrupt cards at all (minus shield trigers). Is it fun and strategic? Why?

[Turonik]

actually... it's be so much better if you could. because otherwise it's just pure luck to stop an attack that turn or what not. Not really a bad game but it's a little TOO simplistic and not terribly startegic . it's just really a game for kids that can be a little mindless fun.

[suffolk]

As with other people in this forum, I am designing my own ccg.  I have read a lot of the post thus far and finally decided to start my own thread.

For those of you who know magic deck-archetypes:  I am a aggro player while my partner is a control player and we are designing a ccg.  Would love to get another "combo" player on the team but for now I will poll the community.

I wanted to see how people felt about different play styles and game functions.  A buddy and I have been hashing out ideas to focus the game mechanics.

We started with turn sequence.  What can you do in a turn and when. I voted for a simpler turn with fewer steps, he wants a larger turn sequence broken down with phases, and further broken down into steps.  Similar to magic: the gather has a lot of phases and steps in a single turn.

For example one of the steps we were discussing was drawing a card.  Does this action happen automatically, or is their a particular step/phase of the turn when a player draws a card.  Please comment on the complexity and breakdown of the turn sequence.  Not too much, and not to little.

Another discussion we had was whether or not to allow counter spells.  Yep a spell that stops your opponent from doing an action.  Perhaps ones with limited ability or a way the opponent can stop your spell from resolving would be countered unless they pay 1. 

I was wanting none at all, as I felt that... let me do what i want and you do what you want and see if your deck is better than mine.  Not a game where you can only win if you stop me from winning.  Once again it because I am aggro player.

How do you feel about "spells that can stop your opponent" in a ccg?


Note: Please do not confuse this with ways to eliminate a card once in play, such as "return to the hand" I am just referring to cards that stop you casting your spells.

[Tokimo]

Random Mutters:

The actual difference between a terminate and essence scatter is almost non-existant. People generally find essence scatter more frustrating. Terminate is a better card half the time (terminate is worse on anything that does mean things when it hits the battlefield or leaves the battlefield and better on anything else, assuming sufficient mana is available to play either at any time).

Additionally, the mechanics one is forced to include to compensate for counter spells (a spell that can resolve before another spell that's already been cast), increase the complexity of the game without a promised increase in strategy.

That being said, I think blocking effects can be okay if done right, but I think it's pretty much just a better choice to make the game resolve around remove effects (perhaps a counterspell can only affect a spell and not an ally?)

[GnKoichi]

I'm going to disagree with Tokimo just to say that adding this level of complexity does add at least one guaranteed level of strategy, and that is the bluff. Do they have the counter-spell now? Do I draw it out with a medium-strength spell so my heavy spell gets through next turn? Can I trick my opponent into thinking I have a counter-spell so that they wait a little bit longer? This can be fun, but it's something you need to decide if you want for your game.

[Tokimo]

Well, the reason I said it doesn't promise an increase in strategy is because I can think of games without the bluff that are paragons of strategy (Chess, Go).

Additionally, you could try to bait a terminate in the same way you could try to bait an essence scatter. Drop a really good creature and attack to get it terminated to then drop a better creature and have it be in the clear (I should start doing this against decks with mild removal... : D)

[suffolk]

well on a personal note, I do not like my spells to be countered.  I feel it is one thing if you can remove my threat, but to actually stop me from making it not good.

With this in mind tho, without a true counter spell, I feel combo decks could take over as they are the deck archetype that do not need permanents to win with.

I have heard it before, that when design cards for your game to make stuff work together, but not to make winning combo cards, but players are intuitive and will find a combo one day.

So I am still a bit torn as to whether or not to include counter-spells in the game design.

[mathman1550]

I like the way Harry Potter TCG does this. There are no counterspells. Each player has 2 actions on each of their turns. There are some cards that can restrict what your opponent can do with their actions (like can not play spell cards next turn). There are some cards you can play to increase your actions, but there are also some cards you can play to reduce your opponents actions. But no matter what, your opponent always gets at least one action.

[Ink-Eyes]

A good magic player will be able to take on any  deck-archetype, especially a control player. we are hard to come across because we can pick up an aggro deck and play it as well as any tim dick or harry about 40 - 50 % of our meta-game worldwide has been jund at least half of those people would of been playing fea with me last year.

[SuperTrain]

Maybe it's because I'm coming from playing YGO, but the idea of negating things from happening and using the chain just feels normal to me. I have no problems with having my spells countered, perhaps because the Trap function in YGO is made in such a way that you have an idea of what is coming.

So in short, I am all for counter-spells.

[suffolk]

Well I am beginning to come around to the idea of a balanced game will need the STOP effects that counter spells provide.

[Turonik]

Well I am beginning to come around to the idea of a balanced game will need the STOP effects that counter spells provide.

A balanced game DOES NOT need the so called stop effects. most popular games use them but not all games do and some are for the better for not using them.

depending on how the game is designed. you can design cards that hinder or dampen effects without flat out canceling them. That way you still get the card's effect but it might not be as effective. Or you can design cards that increase the cost of cards. It depends on the mechanics of the game it self to design effective control

I may be in the minority but when you start having "can't"s in a card game it makes it less fun, which magic and wow tend to have alot of them.

[suffolk]

Well I am beginning to come around to the idea of a balanced game will need the STOP effects that counter spells provide.

A balanced game DOES NOT need the so called stop effects. most popular games use them but not all games do and some are for the better for not using them.

depending on how the game is designed. you can design cards that hinder or dampen effects without flat out canceling them. That way you still get the card's effect but it might not be as effective. Or you can design cards that increase the cost of cards. It depends on the mechanics of the game it self to design effective control

I may be in the minority but when you start having "can't"s in a card game it makes it less fun, which magic and wow tend to have a lot of them.

I was not talking about over-powered cards.  This is what I meant by balanced.

1. Aggro decks beat Control Decks.

2. Control Decks beat Combo Decks

3. Combo decks beat Aggro decks.

regardless of the game you play the deck archetypes are there.

Just like paper, rock, and scissors.  if you take out one key element, then it is not balanced.

Counter/Stop spells is a key factor in controlling what your opponent can do.

I do not necessarily like them, but I feel that to design a game correctly and balanced you need that aspect.  I do not think it is a FIX card because the game designer made a mistake and this is the only way to fix the mistake.

If you hinder one part of the deck-archetype equation then to maintain balance you would have to hinder all of the 3 parts.

A lot of combo decks take a while to build up and then win.  if you can only hinder him by increasing the cost of his spells, all you really do it postpone the inevitable.  He will still win.  This is why there needs to be some form of stop spells.

I know, I am still an aggro player, but I am starting to come around to the idea that having stop spells are not that bad.  I would even to say that conditional stop spells would be acceptable.

What I mean by that is that "stop your spell unless you do STEP B".  If threw your ability to control the game, you can make it so your opponent can not do STEP B, you will succeed in your control deck.