CCG Forum Card Game Discussion Thread

[Aix]

[quote name="Phosphorus" post="6331262" timestamp="1388803984"]Upon second thoughts, a mana system may not work with such small decks, but I still believe the "looser" system present in YGO wouldn't work either. Would a rank system similar to Vanguard work if properly developed?[/quote]There's the X numbee of actions per turn system but I son like that at all. A simple mana system should be fine.

[Delibirb]

What if for "mana" or resources or what have you, we take a page from Turbo Duels, and simply have only magic cards consume resources, each player gains 1 each turn, and there is no limit to it.

 

My minor thought, given I have no knowledge of how MTG, Pokemon TCG, etc work with their resources.

[Sleepy]

What if for "mana" or resources or what have you, we take a page from Turbo Duels, and simply have only magic cards consume resources, each player gains 1 each turn, and there is no limit to it.

 

My minor thought, given I have no knowledge of how MTG, Pokemon TCG, etc work with their resources.

MTG has lands, that have a "1 per turn" limit to playing them from the hand. You use their energy to pay for stuff, and once you use one, it turns off until your next turn. So you have to think about how to spend them during both your turn, and for preparing for the opponent's turn. Other than that, all other cards are pretty much unlimited as long as you can pay for them.

 

Pokemon has energy cards. You attach them to pokemon and when you have the required number and type of energy cards under a certain pokemon, that pokemon is allowed to attack. Unlike "lands" in MTG, they stay forever good under the pokemon. That is, until the pokemon goes out of the field, or an effect itself gets rid of the energy. Pokemon also has a bunch of hand-replenishing cards of the "draw until you have 6" nature, but it's not a broken concept like in yugioh since energies and benched pokemon ARE a necessity that is advantage consuming, and because regardless of how much you have, you still will only do 1 attack per turn.

 

Kaijudo is like MTG, but instead of specialized "lands", you use any regular card you want to from your hand once per turn as energy. They then stay in the mana (energy) zone to pay for stuff and well, it's any card. Among other things, Kaijudo is more simple than MTG, which is not seomething good or bad necessarily, just different.

[Aix]

I dislike that big guys attacking directly don't deal more damage. Also, what of my "destroy monster inflict 1 damage" idea?

[Delibirb]

I dislike that big guys attacking directly don't deal more damage. Also, what of my "destroy monster inflict 1 damage" idea?

If by do 1 damage we still mean remove 1 card from your deck 1 way or another then yeah, I like that. Speeds up the deck-out.

[vla1ne]

I dislike that big guys attacking directly don't deal more damage. Also, what of my "destroy monster inflict 1 damage" idea?

This may be a bit late, but:

Big monsters could have advantages other than dealing more damage. this game seems like it'd end fast regardless of how much damage is dealt, and larger monsters dealing more damage sounds good in a regular game, but in this one, there's already very little in the way of damage absorption (if you're actually using the shields as lp plan)so the balancing of damage seems fair enough to me.


But bigger monsters should be bigger for a reason, so The card game could just have a system where bigger monsters do the same amount of damage as smaller ones, but could be used for alternate purposes as well, like after putting them in play, they could act as Mana substitutes that you tribute to substitute for part of a cost, the higher the cost of a monster, the larger the portion it could sub for.
In other words, the more a monster costs, the larger its share if you use it In place of mana, so a bigger monster with a cost of 3 mana to play would be the equivalent of 1 mana when tributed, while a smaller monster that costs 1 mana could be 1/3. not sure if that came out right, but it's at least close to what's in my head.

also, the destroy 1 monster inflict 1 damage idea sounds like it'd work out really well if there was no direct attacking, that way you wouldn't have to complicate things withnattack and defense positions too much.