Difference between revisions of "Talk:Chronogeddon CCG card set"

From Dvorak - A Blank-Card Game
Jump to navigationJump to search
 
(234 intermediate revisions by 23 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
==Proposal Including Some Possible Cards==
{{ConstructionBox|'''This deck is currently under construction.''' The basic mechanics are still liable to change, but we're creating cards to flesh the game out. Feel free to add cards that fit the existing mechanics, or add minor new mechanics, but don't add any major mechanics or change any existing ones without discussing them first on the talk page.}}


Here are some ideas for cards based around time travel.
:''Old talk on this subject has been [[Talk:New CCG/Archive|archived]].''
:''Joker's thoughts are at [[Talk:New CCG/joker]].''


They are assuming a rule that there are different Eras or Epochs, and that each Thing is 'in' one of these Eras at a time (and presumably that Things can usually only interact with Things in the same Era).
== Project status? ==


This rule seems to me to be worth adopting, but otherwise it seems to me that the game could probably use the basic Dvorak rules, or close to them.
So what's happening with this? Do people think we've got enough material to put some coherent first-draft rules up on the main article page, and make enough cards for an alpha-test set? --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 16:52, 26 March 2007 (BST)


{{Card
:I think so. --[[User:Depressi|Depressi]]
| title = Jurassic Labs
 
| longtitle =
::Me too. --[[User:James|James]] 19:34, 6 April 2007 (BST)
| text = '''Action:''' Put a Character which normally can be played in the Pre-Historic or Pre-Human Eras into play, in the same Era as this Thing.
 
| longtext =
:::So... who does it? [[User:Zaratustra|Zaratustra]] 01:10, 10 April 2007 (BST)
| type = Thing - Location UNIQUE
 
| bgcolor = AA00AA
::::I'd be happy to, but I'd say James got first refusal, as he started the project. --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 12:22, 10 April 2007 (BST)
| cornervalue = Fu
 
| image =
:::::Sorry - I've been staying away from this for a while, so that it doesn't become 'my game'. --[[User:James|James]] 12:14, 1 May 2007 (BST)
| imgback =
| creator =
| minicard =
}}


{{Card
::::::No problem. I'll try to summarise what we've got, then. Any votes for a title? I think my money's still on ''Chronowar'' or ''Chronogeddon''. --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 13:09, 1 May 2007 (BST)
| title = Banishment
| longtitle =
| text = Requires a Wizard. Move any Character to its starting Era, along with any cards on it.
| longtext =
| type = Action - Spell
| bgcolor = AAAA00
| cornervalue =
| image =
| imgback =
| creator =
| minicard =
}}


{{Card
I've added a rough draft of rules and a few example cards that fit them. They're probably a bit biased towards how I was seeing the game progressing, so take me to task on anything I've misinterpreted. --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 14:05, 1 May 2007 (BST)
| title = Summoning
| longtitle =
| text = Requires a Wizard. Move any Character, along with any cards on it, to this Wizard's Era.
| longtext =
| type = Action - Spell
| bgcolor = AAAA00
| cornervalue =
| image =
| imgback =
| creator =
| minicard =
}}


{{Card
After looking through everything for possible strategies, I've written up what I found [[Talk:Chronogeddon_CCG_card_set/Strategy|here]]. As of right now, it looks like the later eras have far more offensive options than the earlier ones. Victorian and Renaissance eras have the fewest. -[[User:Bucky|Bucky]] 01:46, 9 September 2008 (BST)
| title = Leonardo's Contraption
| longtitle =
| text = '''Action''': Each character simultaneously writes down and reveals a number from 0 to their hand size. The player with the highest number wins. You pick the winner in a tie. The winner moves this Equipment and its Character to the Era of their choice, and discards a number of cards equal to their bid.
| longtext =
| type = Thing - Equipment UNIQUE
| bgcolor = 00AA00
| cornervalue = Hi
| image =
| imgback =
| creator =
| minicard =
}}


{{Card
== Game needs a name ==
| title = Trapped In the Ice
| longtitle =
| text = Put this card on any Thing you control in the Pre-Historic or Pre-Human Era. This Thing may not be attacked. At the start of your turn, move this Thing to the Era one later than its current Era (unless it's in the Future). Any Thing in the same Era may take an action to destroy this card.
| longtext =  
| type = Thing - condition
| bgcolor = AAAAAA
| cornervalue = Ph/Pr
| image =
| imgback =
| creator =
| minicard =
}}


{{Card
Okay, we really should get a name sorted out for this. Fire out some suggestions and we'll take a vote. --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 00:57, 9 May 2007 (BST)
| title = Time Machine
| longtitle =
| text = '''Action''': This Character moves to any Era.
| longtext =
| type = Thing - Equipment
| bgcolor = 00AA00
| cornervalue = Fu
| image =
| imgback =
| creator =
| minicard =
}}


:Uchronia. [[User:Zaratustra|Zaratustra]] 03:27, 9 May 2007 (BST)
:Anachronic, Anachronix. [[User:Zaratustra|Zaratustra]] 03:27, 9 May 2007 (BST)
:Aetas (from latin translation of Era) [[User:Joeyeti|Joeyeti]] 07:29, 9 May 2007 (BST)
:Chronowar, Chronogeddon. [[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 11:34, 9 May 2007 (BST)
:''Chronocide'' --[[User:BM|BM]] 15:56, 9 May 2007 (BST)
:Temporal Chaos!  ''(Any similarity to names of recently released Magic: the Gathering sets is purely coincidental, I'm sure.)'' [[User:Jtwe|Jtwe]] 17:48, 9 May 2007 (BST)
:Bellum Aetarum, an expanded version of Joeyeti's suggestion-[[User:Bucky|Bucky]] 03:10, 10 May 2007 (BST)
:: which stands for? [[User:Zaratustra|Zaratustra]] 08:18, 10 May 2007 (BST)
: OSCAR - Open-Source Cards and Rules. --[[User:James|James]] 18:42, 19 May 2007 (BST)
:Epochalypse [[User:Leeham|Leeham]]


<br clear=all>
Maybe each person could pick their top three or top five amongst all names, their own included? [[User:Zaratustra|Zaratustra]] 00:49, 26 June 2007 (BST)
:Sounds good. Mine, in descending order: Chronogeddon, Anachronix, Chronowar, Uchronia, Chronocide. --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 18:57, 23 July 2007 (BST)
:Uchronia, Chronogeddon, Aetas, Chronowar, Anachronix. -- [[User:Zaratustra|Zaratustra]] 17:13, 24 July 2007 (BST)
:Using the Condorcet method I've deduced that nobody else gives a damn about the name of the thing. Should we pick Chronoggedon and be done with it or wait for more people to manifest? -- [[User:Zaratustra|Zaratustra]] 02:47, 8 August 2007 (BST)
::Another month later, and yes, we might as well, we can always change it back if other people suddenly wake up and vote strongly for something else. It's a better working title than "New CCG". --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 11:09, 6 September 2007 (BST)


How about Timescape, Eternal Combat, Cataclysmic Glory, Chrono Warriors or just Timeline? I also like Chronowar, Anachronix and Uchronia but my only beef with Chronogeddon was it was hard to pronounce at first glance. [[User:Aetherknight|Aetherknight]] 15:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


== Year numbers vs. abbreviations ==


--[[User:James|James]] 10:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Year numbers make setting decks more complicated than it needs to be... should they be abbreviated to a letter or number correspondent to their particular Era? [[User:Zaratustra|Zaratustra]] 00:54, 17 July 2007 (BST)


:Looks good. So what about combat - a simple "Action: Destroy a Thing in the same Era." system with variations, or something more complicated, with numbers? --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 11:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
::I think the reasoning behind the different years on the cards was originally to act as another balancing trait to weight down stronger cards and making them harder to play. But like Zaratustra is basically saying the way the game is set up now the difference between -250 M and -70 M is non-existent. The way I see it I suggest we should do one of three things. 1)Change to abbreviations. 2)Make sub-eras that would make a disparity in years and separate cards, maybe having a rule that says closing one end of a portal be killing an earlier half (-250 M, -100 M] [-99 M, -65 M) or else that would make it different but not impossible 3)Make more cards that specify differences on card years. Being a MTG player and releasing the slight different of 1GG and 2G is very dramatic but often times can make games more fair and allow for more powerful yet unbroken cards I vote for 3. Maybe something like
{{Card
| title = Paige
| cornervalue = 1299
|longtext=true
| text = Play this card only if you control a Soldier unit older than this.
'''Stamina: 1'''<br>
'''Unit Action:''' Remove 3 damage from a Soldier. You may not play this ability your next turn<br>
'''Action:'''A soldier in this era may take damage in place of this.
|flavortext=He's learned two things so far: Attend to his master, and hide behind him.
| type = Unit - Soldier
| bgcolor = 0000AA
| creator = Aetherknight
}}


:::Maybe cards have two numbers; a 'hit points' and an 'attack', and there's a cardless action you can take to pick two units in the same Era, one of which you control, and each one loses hit points = to the other card's attack. Then any more complicated ideas such as armour, evasion etc can be done as card text. --[[User:James|James]] 18:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
{{card
::::That works. Using a Magic-style "healing back up to full at the end of the turn" system rather than keeping a permanent track with counters, I suppose?
|title= Hungry Super Raptors
|cornervalue= -100M
|type=Unit-Animal
|longtext=true
|text=When this comes into play destroy all Units older than this card<br>
'''Damage 3'''<br>
'''Stamina 3'''<br>
If this card did not attack or was not attacked put a hunger counter on it. 2 hunger counters destroys it.
'''Action:''' Destroy an animal you control in the same time period as this, heal 1 and remove a hunger counter from this.
|bgcolor=0000AA
|creator=Aetherknight}}


:::::I actually thought you'd put counters on the Things to represent 'Wounds' - maybe any Thing can take an action to remove 1 Wound from itself. --[[User:James|James]] 06:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
{{card
::::::Ah, okay. I suppose the details of healing will shake out in playtesting (one Action to heal one wound seems very expensive, when you could use the Action to attack or play a card instead; I think we'd be okay with having healing as an optional card mechanic), but counters are fine. --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 15:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
|title=Test of time
:::::::Ah, but that's a card-less action that anyone can do, so it has to be not very good. Presumably there'd be cards/characters with the ability to heal more. --[[User:James|James]] 12:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
|type=Action
::::::::Perhaps; I'm just wary of cluttering the ruleset with obscure minor rules, particularly something so weak that nobody would ever actually use it. But maybe a set of actions that a troop can always perform (attack/self-heal/time-travel-one-Era-forward-or-back?) would be elegant enough to remember. --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 13:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
|minicard=true
:::::::Also we were talking before about players being able to take multiple actions in a single turn (because it makes more sense when playing via the web). --[[User:James|James]] 12:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
|text=Target player picks an era. Destroy the oldest unit in it.
::::::::We were? How many multiple actions? And does this mean multiple attacks? --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 13:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
|bgcolor=AA0000
|flavortext=All great things must come to an end.
|creator=Aetherknight}}
{{card
|title=Alien Artifact
|cornervalue= -[*]
|minicard=true
|type=Thing
|text=This card's year is -Infinity but can be played in any era. When this card is destroyed draw 2 cards.
|bgcolor=0000AA
|flavortext=Unlock its mysterious splendor.
|creator=Aetherknight}}
Sorry they're not all mini-cards; the corner value compressed the text too much.
I'd love to hear what you guys think and maybe I'll add a few cards of my own. <br>
[[User:Aetherknight|Aetherknight]] 15:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)<br clear=all>
== Game Mechanics ==


::::How many Eras are we starting with, and how open should we be to unknown Eras being introduced later on? (Cards like ''Jurassic Labs'' would probably be better worded as "Play a character from an Era earlier than 4,000BC", rather than naming any specific Eras.)
===v1.0===
::::How about the victory mechanism? Achieving dominance of a particular Era sounds like the way to go - perhaps have the Era cards played facing their owners, representing some sort of time portal into that Era (so that if two players are using the Roman Era in their decks, there are two Roman Era portals on the table, one owned by each player). If you're the only player with troops in an Era, you can target attacks against your opponent's Era card directly - either needing a single Strength X attack, or a free but two-turn "portal closing" thing; flip a face-up portal face-down (with some mechanic for the owner to reopen it), or remove a face-down portal from the table.
::::I think that's all we need before we can start brainstorming cards... --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 19:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


:::::Can you make some cards illustrating what you've said above? --[[User:James|James]] 12:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Two things I didn't cover when writing up the rules, but which have been discussed a bit - Resources and the Rock-Paper-Scissor trinity.
::::::It's more mechanics than cards. The actual Era cards would just say "Roman Era (31BC-476AD)" (some might have special rules like "cards requiring electricity cannot be used here", but that doesn't matter yet). I'm imagining the core mechanics as being something like:-
::::::*Each deck has any number of Era cards, which represent "time portals" - they all go into play at the start of the game, to represent the timeline. Era cards face the player who played them, and if both players happen to have the same Era in their deck, both cards go into play, one facing each player.
::::::*To play a Thing, you put it into play next to the Era card it belongs to, provided that it's your Era card and it's still face-up on the table.
::::::*If you're the only player with Troop cards in an Era, and it has an Era card belonging to your opponent, you can declare an attack against their time portal directly. This automatically succeeds - if it's face up you flip it face down; if it's face-down you remove it from play.
::::::*If one of your Era cards is face down, you can't play new cards into that Era. You can move cards from other Eras into that Era, though (via whatever time travel mechanics exist). If you have troops in an Era with a face-down portal, you can take an action to repair the portal and flip it face-up again (and presumably there'll be other random cards to open and close portals).
::::::*If all of your Era cards have been removed from play, you lose the game.
::::::I'm not sure how well that'd play in practice - whether there'd be too much of a domino effect once you lost one Era, whether two identical-Era opponents would make for a much more boring game than two players with completely different Eras (or vice versa). It should be enough to get started, though, if others agree that it's a good direction. --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 12:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


:::::::Wouldn't you get basically the same effect from saying i) you can't play cards from your hand into an Era if only one player has units there, and that player isn't you, and ii) if you end your turn with no units, you're eliminated (and if only one player isn't eliminated, that player wins)?
Resources would mean that certain units required access to particular resources to function, which would put them at a disadvantage if they were travelling to an unfamiliar Era where they couldn't refuel. One way to implement this would be to agree on a fixed set of resources, and write them on Era cards (with room for having Terrains or Units which could create that resource in alien time periods), and then say things like "If in an Era without a Nuclear resource, Mech Destroyer takes 3 wounds whenever it attacks."


Another question: what is the 'cost' of cards? --[[User:James|James]] 16:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Off the top of my head, resources could be: Coal, Electricity, Nuclear. And if we're going with magical powers, some hazy "Magic" or "Psychic" resource, which tends to be only available in ancient history and/or the far future.


==Dividing Up the Page?==
Which ''might'' be a way to create a rock-paper-scissor trinity at the same time:-
* Present-Day units have the edge over Historical units because they have better weapons that don't always need particular fuel.
* Far-Future units have an edge over Present-Day units because the present day has raidable Electricity and Nuclear power sources.
* Historical units have an edge over Far-Future units, because Mechs don't run very well in the 4th century (and possibly because ancient shamans can use powerful magical attacks against neo-psychics).


People may have noticed that when you edit this page it's giving the message '''"WARNING: This page is 37 kilobytes long; some browsers may have problems editing pages approaching or longer than 32kb. Please consider breaking the page into smaller sections."''' Should we do this? If so, how? --[[User:James|James]] 13:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure that's entirely balanced or coherent, but it seems like it might be a useful direction. --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 16:07, 1 May 2007 (BST)
:We definitely should; just create some sub-pages (eg. [[Talk:New CCG/Subpage]]) and move stuff off into them, linking them from somewhere on this talk page. Probably better just to throw everything into [[Talk:New CCG/Archive]] and make some bold statements about where to go from here, rather than worrying about having multiple subpages running in parallel for different aspects of the game design, but it's up to you. --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 13:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


:::Ok, Ive made one. [[Talk:New_CCG/joker]]  Where I invent all to discuss mine and your ideas.   --So 18. Feb 07  03:00
: Some more suggestions:
:* Pre-historic: Pros - Strongest resourceless creatures, terrain destruction. Cons - Can't close portals on their own, operate vehicles or get useful tools
:* Ancient Ages: Pros - Fast creature placement, units gain strength in numbers. Cons - Individually weak creatures.
:* Medieval Ages: Pros - Creature summoning and banishing, ???. Cons - Dependent on mana for fancy stuff
:* Renaissance: Pros - Vehicle/Terrain summoning, ???. Cons - ???
:* Victorian Age: Pros - Versatile, good with Animal manipulating?. Cons - Scattered, cards don't support each other well
:* Industrial Age: Pros - Strong vehicles, defensive terrain, blitz tactics. Cons - ???
:* Modern Age: Pros - Strong vehicles, good terrains. Cons - Very dependent on resources and terrains to do any real damage
:* Apocalyptic: Pros - Good at recovering stuff from discard pile or otherwise benefiting from unit deaths. Cons - Overall frail
:* Space Age: Pros - Strongest creatures and vehicles. Cons - Very dependent on Energy.
: [[User:Zaratustra|Zaratustra]] 06:37, 2 May 2007 (BST)


==Other Approaches To Development==
::Sounds good, particularly if the Far-Future is more reliant on terrain cards, so more vulnerable to blundering dinosaurs (and maybe mediaeval siege weapons?).
::And the Fuel and Battery system looks good; a nice way to allow "power cards" that don't become fully useful until you play other cards. Not sure if they'd benefit from entering play unfuelled by default, perhaps with the power-station Terrains saying that "X-powered Units enter play with full X." --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 16:02, 2 May 2007 (BST)


So far people's ideas and suggestions (including mine) have been concentrating on specific rules/mechanics ideas.
If a face down era is turned face down, is it destroyed? [[User:JJ12121616|JJ12121616]] 02:14, 8 June 2007 (BST)


Maybe another way to look at it would be to take the Dvorak rules as is, or a variation on them like the [[The Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy CCG card set|Hitchhikers Guide]] game, and see if this theme could work with it. --[[User:James|James]] 13:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
:No. - [[User:Zaratustra|Zaratustra]] 05:35, 8 June 2007 (BST)
:The Guide CCG started with one person coming up with a basic rule structure by themselves (which were sufficiently advanced from the basic Dvorak rules to suggest how random concepts could translate to the game universe), and encouraging other people to build cards on top of that. Getting to that stage is the priority, really, even if it's done sketchily and improved on later. --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 15:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


===Yet Another Approach: Wishlist===
If two players both have the same era in play, how does gameplay function? Do both eras count as one? Are they seperate, such as my portal could be closed while yours is open? Are they together in occupancy or do they function as two seperate eras, both with a diffrent location in the timeline? If so, what order do they go in? [[User:JJ12121616|JJ12121616]] 02:14, 8 June 2007 (BST)


What is the one thing you'd most like to see in this game (interpreting 'thing' however you like)? --[[User:James|James]] 14:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
:Yes, yes, together. It's one era with two portals, I don't see the problems people have with it. - [[User:Zaratustra|Zaratustra]] 05:35, 8 June 2007 (BST)


==A Theme That Isn't Time Travel==
::No problems, just wanted clarification for play testing. [[User:JJ12121616|JJ12121616]] 20:39, 8 June 2007 (BST)


Here's an idea taken largely from the role-playing game [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torg Torg], which 'explains' how different genres can interact, without using time travel.
Can you use your action then your thing, or is the thing required to be played first? [[User:JJ12121616|JJ12121616]] 04:08, 9 June 2007 (BST)


Each player represents a different parallel universe, with different laws (which correspond to the conventions of a particular genre), which cover such things as whether magic works, whether advanced technology works etc.
:Either way as per standard dvorak rules. -  [[User:Zaratustra|Zaratustra]] 05:54, 9 June 2007 (BST)


Players can cross over to different universes, but are partly subject to the laws of their 'host' universe eg magicians might find that their spells don't work.
Can you attack your own Units? [[User:Chenhsi|Chenhsi]] 06:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


I'd suggest three main variables:
===Flight?===


* to what extent magic is allowed.
I'm thinking that "Flying" might be a useful keyword, so that there's a clear mechanic saying that a ground-based unit can't do much damage to a flying one, that a Tyrannosaurus isn't going to do very well against a B-12 Bomber. We could change "damage" stats into "Ranged damage" and "Close-combat damage" (or something), allow units to pick which type they use when they attack, and define "Flying" as meaning "Prevent all close-combat damage, unless it comes from another Flying Unit."
* to what extent advanced technology works.
* to what extent evil exists/is dominant - for example in the Care Bears universe evil basically doesn't exist, in a superhero comic it does but is pre-destined to lose, in the World of Darkness series it's pre-destined to win.


Presumably each deck would feature a 'universe card' giving the initial stats for the deck's universe, and there would be various cards to alter these stats during the game. --[[User:James|James]] 07:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
What do people think? --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 18:40, 7 May 2007 (BST)


:Okay, this sounds like a good theme to go with. How are the universes interacting, if you're thinking of one per deck - each player is dividing troops between their own universe and the one they're invading, attempting to conquer their opponent's universe without letting their own one fall?
:This could also be tied in to the idea of the Future Eras requiring Terrain support, if Flying Units required an Airstrip or Launchpad to be in play, before they could be played themselves (which would also allow Flying Units to be powerful against ground troops, without being unbalanced). --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 15:25, 8 May 2007 (BST)
:Not sure about the "alter these stats" aspect of the universe cards; although it could be a nice way to control the speed of the game, in the same way as Magic the Gathering's mana (on the first turn when your universe is only slightly suited to mine, I can only send small things through; on later turns when I've made it much more suitable, I can send the bigger cards in), I'm not sure how well it works when there's not a neat balance between the universes; if one player's having to work hard to make their opponent's universe more magical so that they can get a dragon through, while the other is cheerfully sending out vampires because both universes happened to already be evil, it sounds a bit foregone. --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 21:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


:: That's partly a reason to make it multi-player, to reduce the importance of that sort of 'rock-scissors-paper' interaction between decks.
::Hm. To avoid numberitis, I'd suggest just adding (melée), (range) or (melée/range) to the Damage tag of cards. Flying could mean 'can only attack at range and be attacked by range attacks'. This would allow for units that are only damaged by close-range, too. - [[User:Zaratustra|Zaratustra]] 20:25, 20 May 2007 (BST)
:: Presumably there'd be some sort of balance between usability of units, and their power. So that eg dragons and tanks only work in particular types of universe, whereas spearmen work everywhere.
:::That works. --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 16:22, 21 May 2007 (BST)
:: Ditto presumably decks with 'delicate' units would also include cards which allow them to maintain their universe as is.
:: The above could lead to a situation where offensive decks use lots of small, versatile units & cards to change other universes' rules, whereas defensive decks use powerful, 'delicate' units and cards to maintain their own universe (which is a little bit not what you'd expect ie you'd expect such things as dragons and demons to be offensive and spearmen to be defensive).
:: You could also build in a tendency for the universe's rules to move in a particular direction over the course of the game.
:: Anyway, if most people want to do time travel then I'm happy to go with that. --[[User:James|James]] 06:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


:::As I say in the "number of players" section, it's easy to avoid the rock-paper-scissor problem by allowing hybridisation between universes. If I have the option to kit my Care Bears out with machine guns and holy water from other universes, then it's not a boringly foregone conclusion when I come up against a World of Darkness deck. (It also makes deck design more interesting, if you have a wider pool of cards to choose from. And would help balance all the different universes out, to some extent - if the Superhero set had a single, insane power card in it, then everyone would have the option of splashing that card into their decks.)
Alternative flight mechanic: "Flying" means "Can only be attacked by other Flying Units", and all Flying Vehicles would say things like "At the start of your turn, if there isn't an Airstrip in the same Era as this Unit, it loses 1 Fuel." (with whatever other wordings; a Launchpad for futuristic fliers, nothing for flying Animals, and tweaked variations). --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 17:15, 10 May 2007 (BST)
:::I'm fine with either theme, anyway, there's not really much difference between them. I'd just like to see things getting started. --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 11:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
:If there's no recharge station (like airstrips) for flying Animals, how is it possible to recharge Dragon's mana? Is Dragon flying specifically so that it can't be recharged? --[[User:Corrigan|Corrigan]] 9:46, December 18 (PST)


==Publicising the Project==
:Fuel already goes down quite fast (one per Unit Action). Maybe something like 'cannot refuel without an Airstrip terrain'? - [[User:Zaratustra|Zaratustra]] 20:25, 20 May 2007 (BST)
::Aha, perfect. And futuristic airstrips would just recharge batteries, so would be useless for present-day aeroplanes. --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 16:22, 21 May 2007 (BST)


Would it be a good idea to put a message on some google or yahoo groups (for example) saying that this project exists and wants input?--[[User:James|James]] 06:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
So can Flying units attack each other? [[User:Chenhsi|Chenhsi]] 22:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
:If you know any good, relevant groups, then go for it, by all means. --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 18:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


::Is everyone else OK with me doing this? If so, here's a possible wording. Please leave comments here --[[User:James|James]] 10:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
===Ongoing effects===


:::That you even ask???? GO FOR IT!!!!!!!! B-)  --[[User:Joeyeti|Joeyeti]] 10:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
This came up in the [[Infinite Dvorak deck]] as well, and I don't know if it's just my preference, but I think we should be avoiding cards which create invisible permanent effects. Mechanics like "Target Animal in the same era is now a Soldier" and "If a Marine is attacked for the first time" require the players to remember a change in the gamestate, and preventing the entire gamestate from being read by looking at the table.


If this idea is acceptable, I'll leave the wording here and a list of where I've put it, so that other people can do the same if they want without people getting it twice. --[[User:James|James]] 10:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
In all cases, I think they can be reworded so as not to require invisible tracking (or at least flipped to make the tracking very short term - "If this Unit came into play during your most recent turn, it has -2 Damage and -2 Stamina, and counts as a Soldier instead of an Animal." for Werewolf). What do other people think? --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 11:53, 10 May 2007 (BST)
: The Island is quite a specialty card, though. It's not going to see much play, in my opinion. [[User:Zaratustra|Zaratustra]] 20:55, 10 May 2007 (BST)
::Perhaps, but if we're agreed that invisible effects are a potentially bad and confusing thing, there's no reason for them to exist at all, even on rare cards. And actually, the problem I raised for James's ''Collected Speeches'' applies to the ''Island'' as well - if an Animal "is now a Soldier" and gets shuffled back into my deck, what happens to it? (It would be cleaner to have the Island adding Mutation Tokens to units, and defining an effect for them - in fact, if I was playing a game with an Island deck, I'd probably use tokens to keep track of things anyway. Admittedly it's completely implicit that tokens "fall off" of a card when it leaves play, under the current rules, but that's much more intuitive than state effects terminating.) --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 16:47, 22 June 2007 (BST)
:Sound oppinion... On my behalf ''(If marine is attacked for the first time...)'' I would say that some sort of markers or coins could be used to track the Stamina count of a Unit. --[[User:Joeyeti|Joeyeti]] 14:14, 10 May 2007 (BST)
::I think we've already established that we're using "wound counters" to keep track of damage, although it's a bit patchily worded, throughout the cards. If we've already got one type of token being use a lot on each card, we should probably avoid using too many more. (''Marine'' could be changed to "If Marine is attacked while unwounded..." without losing too much of the mechanic, and ''Reaper-Jack'' could become "Damage: 1, Stamina: 3. Reaper-Jack enters play with two wounds. If Reaper-Jack kills another Unit, he may heal one wound.") --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 14:49, 10 May 2007 (BST)
:I don't see what the big deal about Island is. Wouldn't the effect cease to be ongoing once the card is destroyed? This would mean that no counters would be needed and one could understand the status of the game at first glance. If it is meant to be permanent after the Island is gone then that seems a little odd and should be errataed. As for Marine I would suggest something more simpler like "Until the start of your next turn attacks cannot damage Marine" to keep memorization to a minimum if the use of a counter is discouraged. [[User:Aetherknight|Aetherknight]] 08:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


{| style="border:#000 solid; border-width:2px 2px 2px 2px; border-spacing:8px 8px; margin:4px 10px 4px 4px" 
|Hi,


Some people on this list [in this group / on this forum] might be interested in this.
===Speeding things up===
We've recently started working on a project that, as far as we know, is pretty unique.
To make the game faster-paced, and to give it more of a momentum effect, I think it would be a good idea to have these two Special Rules:
*Players may play one Thing through ''each'' open Portal.
*Players may take one Action in ''each'' Era they have Units in at the start of their turn, plus one Timeless Action per turn.
--[[User:Bucky|Bucky]] 19:53, 28 September 2007 (BST)


The idea is to set up a game which works like a collectible card game, but which is 'open-source': free, non-profit, and created entirely by its players.
I like the idea in theory, but you're still only drawing one card per turn. Plus, the couple of times I played, armies tended to build up quickly. -- [[User:Zaratustra|Zaratustra]] 07:58, 29 September 2007 (BST)


The game will also be multi-genred (like GURPS for example), which will allow people to create decks based around whatever theme they're most interested in.
:In that case, we could keep the one-Thing-per-turn limit but allow the extra Actions. -[[User:Bucky|Bucky]] 02:19, 30 September 2007 (BST)


If you're interested, please go to the page for the project, which is  http://www.dvorakgame.co.uk/index.php/New_CCG. This page is a wiki (like Wikipedia), so while you need to set up an account, you don't need to give your email.
===External and Aquatic===
What is meant by these two keywords? The rulse do not seem to mention either one.--[[User:ChippyYYZ|ChippyYYZ]] 23:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


Thanks,
:They have no meaning in the rules, but have their obvious meanings anyway.  'Aquatic' is referenced by a few cards and basically means 'able to be attacked by Kraken'.  'External' is not referenced by any cards.-[[User:Bucky|Bucky]] 20:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


[your name].
:I think that it might make more sense if Aquatic units could only be attacked by Units that are Aquatic, Aerial or have range damage. It's kind of illogical that a zombie could attack a ship in the ocean. -- [[User: Corrigan|Corrigan]] 9:52, December 18, 2010 (PST)
|-
|}


{| style="border:#000 solid; border-width:2px 2px 2px 2px; border-spacing:8px 8px; margin:4px 10px 4px 4px" 
== Timeline ==


|If you send the above message anywhere, please list it here so it doesn't get sent to the same place twice. --[[User:James|James]] 18:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Hm. Should there be a post-apocalyptic period? Should it be before or after space exploration? Or beside it? {{unsigned|Zaratustra|22:26, 1 May 2007}}
:We could just add a load of post-apocalypse cards to the tail end of the Information Age (perhaps jotting out a detailed timeline somewhere, to clarify that an apocalypse occurs in 2086); I'm not sure we'd necessarily gain very much by adding more and more and thinner and thinner Eras to the timeline.
:Having said that, a post-apocalypse probably ''should'' be distinct from the Era that immediately precedes it, so that 21st century mobile phones and pet foods and chat shows can't be played straight into it. Feel free to give it a go and see how it pans out. --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 00:07, 2 May 2007 (BST)


usenet/google groups:
Last Days of Earth is pretty empty and even I can't think of stuff to put in. Shall it be returned to ashes? [[User:Zaratustra|Zaratustra]] 07:45, 18 May 2007 (BST)
* rec.games.design


yahoo groups:
When looking at one Era, it's hard to know which cards fall under them if the cards are listed at an earlier Era.  For example, the Refinery has the date 1888+, so it is listed under the Victorian Era.  That means when I'm looking at the Apocalyptic Era I don't see it, which gets hard to keep track of.  I think that each Era should have a section which lists the names of these unshown multi-Era cards even if the card itself is only actually displayed in one place (for ease of editing).  This will make balancing and deck design much easier.  If no one has any objections I will add this in the next few days. [[User:Azareon|Azareon]] 22:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
* BoardGameDesign (its description says it's also for discussion of card games)
* pdx-gamers
* wwfrawdealcustomcards
* Cardgame80
* Magiccardscreator


forums:
:It seems like a good idea to have such a list around somewhere.-[[User:Bucky|Bucky]] 23:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
* boardgamegeek.com forum (site is also about card games)


|}
It's kind of odd that there are no Eras between the Mesozoic Era and Antiquity. Might I suggest an intermediate one, say "Stone Age", "Paleolithic Era" or "Dawn of Man", themed around early tribal culture? -- [[User: Corrigan|Corrigan]] 15:42, December 18, 2010.


== Starter / booster packs ==
Would it be interesting to make a 'starter' pack with, say, 20 cards per Era and 30 timeless cards, then put the rest on semi-themed 'boosters'? -- [[User:Zaratustra|Zaratustra]] 08:41, 12 September 2007 (BST)


:Actually, people do need to set up an account, I'm afraid - MediaWiki sites get spammed to hell if anonymous IPs can edit pages, so I changed a setting to require account creation. --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 11:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
:Speaking from (minor) experience, it's hard to keep track of this sort of thing, but it does make for a more interesting game. However, if you go that route, then you can excuse making broken cards by making them really rare, but then the one guy who has the card kills everyone and can protest when his card is changed. --[[User:Atticus|Atticus]] 23:52, 19 May 2008 (BST)


::I've changed it based on this. --[[User:James|James]] 12:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
::To make things fair when there are two players in the same era, the player who goes first should ''not'' be able to take an Action on the first turn. Otherwise, whoever goes second loses that portal.-[[User:Bucky|Bucky]] 00:24, 12 August 2008 (BST)


:::I suppose we should move this page to a more generic placeholder name, as well, if we're giving the URL out. Feel free to use the "move" tab to retitle it. --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 13:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
== Art ==
Yeah, I know I'm mostly the only person that cares about this one, but even so: -- [[User:Zaratustra|Zaratustra]] 02:15, 24 September 2007 (BST)


:::I've done this. --[[User:James|James]] 18:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
http://zarawesome.googlepages.com/chronocards2.png


==Name==
== Card feedback ==


Did "History ReZap" come from anywhere particular? Maybe we should throw some names around. I'm a bit of a sucker for "chrono" prefixes - "Chronopocalypse" and "Chronogeddon" are a bit clunky, but "Chronowar" isn't bad. --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 12:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
===Cards by James===
:'''Joe:''' Nope, it was the third thing that came to my mind after some obvious and cliché names ;-) '''Chronowar''' is not bad... until a different suggestion! --[[User:Joeyeti|Joeyeti]] 13:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


Apparently there's an online-only CCG called Chron X, though. --[[User:James|James]] 06:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I did a fair few cards, none of which seem to be on the front page?


I'd like a game that suggests that the theme is 'anything', rather than that the theme is 'time travel'. --[[User:James|James]] 10:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
--[[User:James|James]] 18:45, 19 May 2007 (BST)
:Oh. How wide are you casting "anything"? Surely it wouldn't be appropriate to insert a load of computer hacking cards, or microbial lifeforms, or city construction mechanics, or chess pieces? "Summoning troops from throughout time" seems enough to keep us going for a very long time.
:Or are you seeing this more as sketching out a very generic CCG system (goals, combat, etc) that can be split off into ''GCCG: Chronowar'', ''GCCG: Microbia'' and so on? --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 11:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


::: I was thinking this way: if you're going to start a project like this, I'd imagine that people who are interested in it are likely to have a particular theme that they want to do - maybe they play a particular game and they'd like to do something with all those card ideas they have, or they've always wanted a game based on a particular film, or whatever. So the challenge is to come up with a way that everyone can get what they want.
:They don't show up on the edit log either.[[User:Bucky|Bucky]]
:::My suggestion of time/'dimensional' travel was intended to be a way of 'explaining' how these different genres can be interacting. Obviously some people might like the theme of 'time travel' itself, and that's fine, and it does offer ideas for various cards and mechanisms as we've seen here, but if it's presented to people as "this is a game about time travel" then that's just effectively picking a particular theme.
:::I think that the examples you came up with could easily be integrated into the 'story' as we've come up with it so far.  --[[User:James|James]] 12:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


::::That's fair enough. Having a tighter theme makes design more focused, though, and I'd have thought that was an important thing for the early days of a collaborative CCG. Diversity is fine if there's a tested archetype to work from, but I think we need to work together to build that archetype, first. It's much easier to design solo expansions if you know the basic shape of the game, the stats of an average card, which types of mechanics are and aren't allowed, and what sorts of cards and effects are going to exist in other people's decks.
:Maybe they got lost in a edit collision and you didn't notice? [[User:Zaratustra|Zaratustra]] 20:52, 19 May 2007 (BST)
::::At the moment we're still sitting around discussing things purely theoretically - we need to start venturing example cards and eventually building enough so that we can playtest the system, playing out a lot of games against each other, building decks from the same small card pool. It seems a bit early to be asking people to write their own personal-favourite expansions. --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 13:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


:::::Yeah, no, sure, I think the initial set should be the basics. --[[User:James|James]] 15:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
:If you mean the ones you suggested [[Talk:New_CCG/Archive#Proposal_Including_Some_Possible_Cards_.28updated_March_3_.2707.29|in the talk thread back in February]], they weren't all converted and copied across when the main CCG page was created; I didn't want to be too presumptuous about rewording cards (like ''Time Machine'') to the finalised system, so only took a couple of examples. Feel free to tweak and copy them across. --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 10:44, 20 May 2007 (BST)


::I took the liberty of copying the more obvious cards. I like the ideas of Spell Actions that can be played on any Era a Wizard is in, but your examples are both strictly worse than Time Warp. Leonardo's Contraption awaits the inclusion of a Renaissance era. - [[User:Zaratustra|Zaratustra]] 00:24, 21 May 2007 (BST)


:"Joker:" Well, I'd say, we'd start the game with a particular theme, in this case (not time travel) but development. Later, if someone likes the system but dislikes the genre, he can change the names and texts on the cards. It's much easier to create a game that way. We just have to  pick up the ideas and don't have to talk long about very theoratical things. The cards speak their own language and mine is german.
Reaper-Jack - Are the counters removed instead of wounds being added? {{unsigned|JJ12121616}}
I would suggest the name: <b> civilizations clash </b> 12.02.07 Mo 00:40


==Theme==
''Collected Speeches of Lucifer'' falls under the "ongoing effects" problem raised elsewhere on this talk page; in this case the card can actually lead to ambiguous events (if I make a Tyrannosaur Infernal and it gets shuffled back into my deck, does it stay Infernal? And if so, how do I distinguish it from other Tyrannosaurs in my deck?). ''"All other Units you control in this Era are counted as Infernal."'' might be okay, depending on what Infernality ends up doing. --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 16:41, 22 June 2007 (BST)


I suppose we should get the theme clear, before going too far anything else. The basic concept of the game is going to be "a war fought by soldiers from different time periods", from what's been said on the list, yes? With the players' characters being some sort of time-controlling generals able to summon forth troops from anywhen in the past or the future? Are we going to worry about the mechanics of time travel between years to fetch things, or are the players just pulling units and buildings straight into existence on the battlefield? --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 17:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Jurassic Labs: Should this be changed to only allow Animals to be played? Right now I could use it to play a Ninja, Flying Machine or Bulldozer, which doesn't make much sense. Great style though, and I imagine nice combos with the Island. Ice Trap: Are the units assigned to this unable to take actions? I think this should be the case because they are frozen.
:'''Joe:'''  Yup, I would see it like that. I guess Time Travel would not need to be involved that much, maybe '''just as some Actions''', affecting the Battlefield or some '''Things that would be persistent''' and would be a ''result of a mishappened Time Travel''. So just minor affections. --[[User:Joeyeti|Joeyeti]] 08:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
[[User:Azareon|Azareon]] 21:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
: Another take - trying to control history by moving other people through time. Have a set of eras, winner is the one who controls a large majority of them. (To mix examples, something like LotRs "site path" (where each location is in order, say Stone Age -> Dark Ages -> Age of Sail -> WW1 -> WW2 -> Space Age), combined with classic SW's "converting" (multiple versions of each location, that players can replace to show their control. Could also have helpful/hindering game text). [[User:AnyGould|AnyGould]] 23:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


==Number of players==
:Jurassic Labs- I'm not sure because nobody has tried building a deck using the Labs.  Jurrassic Labs are certainly the most powerful play-out-of-era cards, so some toning down may be needed.  I'd suggest trying out the current version and seeing if it's broken.
:Ice Trap- As written, no; you're free to use it to take a couple of dinosaurs on a strafing run through a couple of enemy eras.
:-[[User:Bucky|Bucky]] 23:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


Basic question: would this game be a '''"1 on 1"''' or '''"1 on many"'''?  --[[User:Joeyeti|Joeyeti]] 11:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
::I wasn't referring to the game balance of these cards, but the in-game rationale for what they do.  A Jurassic Park style Lab should not be able to create Ninjas or Panzer Tanks, because that doesn't make any sense (and yes, it might be hugely overpowered--I could make a deck in the last three Eras that uses any Units I want at all if I have a bunch of these Labs).  I suggest restricting it to something like playing Units from before 499 or to Animals (although I realize this means it could allow Elementals and Zombies to be played, which doesn't make sense either).  Also, it doesn't make sense for a frozen dinosaur to attack someone and still be frozen.  If the dinosaur attacks, it should be "unassigned" from the Ice Trap.  Or the name could be changed to something like Glacial Valley, which sounds like it could allow units to leave it and then re-enter.  Obviously this doesn't have to change, but I think the style of this game is very cool, and having cards' game mechanics reflect the imaginary things they represent heightens the style tremendously. [[User:Azareon|Azareon]] 04:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


:I'd prefer it to be multi-player. The reason for this is that we all seem to be assuming that there's going to be a 'rock-scissors-paper' element to the game, where decks of one type might tend to beat decks of another, even if the two decks are equally well-constructed. Even if we didn't want to have such an element, it would probably tend to happen anyway.
Loot: How does a Modifier work?  Can you play it in addition to an Action?  I only see this one card as a Modifier, although my suggestion for how The Butterfly Effect should work would be one as well. Maybe this should be explained under the rules. [[User:Azareon|Azareon]] 22:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
:If this is true, then you might tend to get situations in a two-player game, where it's obvious who's going to win as soon as you start. "I'm playing superheroes, you're playing ancient Romans, I'm going to lose, how about we save 20 minutes and I just give up now."
:A multi-player game would tend to create more complicated, and therefore more interesting situations, and have an evening-out effect where "OK, we're both playing 'rock', and you're playing 'paper', but if we gang up on you we can clip back your advantage". Thus making the game more interesting. --[[User:James|James]] 10:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


::When I talked about the rock-paper-scissor thing, I didn't mean that it would lead to foregone conclusions - like the [http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/academy/22 aggro-control-combo] trinity in Magic, there'd still be the random element of which cards actually get drawn, and a lot of hybridisation to stop a given deck from being too specialised ("My mediaeval deck can defend very strongly against far-future attackers, but I'd better throw a couple of rayguns in, even if they're tricky for my troops to operate, just in case they come up against a WW2 deck").
:You can play it whenever it says you can play it and and may not play it at any other time.  I don't know what "Modifier" means, but the card text speaks for itself.-[[User:Bucky|Bucky]] 23:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
::I'd like to see a game that worked as both 1-on-1 and 1-on-many. --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 11:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


::I as well would like to see it work for both duel and multiplayer, as well as team formats. In reality, such things would happen anyway, depending on the number of available players.  Besides, even a duel player can have fun playing the metagame. -- [[User:Eswald|Eswald]] 21:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
The Steam Airship Gunner is listed as 1890+. I understand why a Time Machine could be found natively after the end of this Era, but is there a rationale for why a steampunk airship would be found in the Apocalypse or Space Ages, etc.? [[User:Azareon|Azareon]] 08:43, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


==Structure==
===Cards by Zaratustra===


Washing up and listening to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circulus Circulus], it struck me that past/present/future makes quite a nice paper/scissor/stone model, which is a good base to build a CCG on. The post-industrial present beats the distant past because it has science and technology, the alien future beats the present by having ''better'' science that's geared to defeating or seizing control of puny 20th century weapons, and the mediaeval past beats the future either through its lack of reliance on technology, or (probably more interestingly) through its vague mystic powers. We needn't explicitly define the three eras, but a general tendency for each of them to be vulnerable to the people and artifacts of one other might be a good thing to keep in mind. --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 17:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
''Red Giant Sun'' would make more sense as a Terrain with a Unit Action ability, wouldn't it? (And maybe an area-effect one, at that.) --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 22:52, 1 May 2007 (BST)
:'''Joe:'''  Question is if only '''3 different time Epochs''' would be sufficient for such a game? Maybe from the Start yes with possible other Epochs coming in after testing the basic Idea first. --[[User:Joeyeti|Joeyeti]] 08:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
::No, I deliberately avoided the word "Epoch", I just meant that there could be a general tendency for the present to beat the past, the future to beat the present and the past to beat the future. Narrowly-defined Epochs seem like probably the best way of defining who can use which equipment, I'm completely in favour of those. --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 12:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


<b>(old ideas)</b>-[[User:Joker|Joker]]
:Hm, true. [[User:Zaratustra|Zaratustra]] 23:09, 1 May 2007 (BST)
I tried to make a game like this once. Few years ago. I tried following things out: To have all the time intervals (I had 5) in one deck: But when i was in stone age, it was quite likely that I hadn't one single card of the stone age in my hand. So i tried out to make several decks: When you achieved the goal of a certain epoch (for example a priest and a city hall) you achieved the next Status (f.e. industrial age) & you mixed the next deck in your card stack.
Than I had the problem, that i got the well very late in the future. Maybe its better to exchange the whole card deck. The Apeman whos in front of the player allready can stay, he wont survive the WWII, I'll bet.
<b>(new ideas)</b>But I had a system which worked quite well: There are some "stones": Religion, Market, Industry, Community.... representing the advantages of your civilization. You could just play cards like "Gods intervention" with the religion button or "Monopol" with the Market button.You can figth for these buttons from Stone age onwards, some may be introduced later (or maybe you cant get more religion points after renaissance or so). The player whos the first to achieve FUTURE STATUS wins. 
But maybe its much too complicated to make 3 or 4 decks and then play through the whole history of mankind that way. So, I don't know exactly maybe its already mentioned anyway: You could split the time intervals: Apeman can just fight against apeman - Tanks against Helicopters and so on but the technologies develop out of each other, so you cant build helicopters in the future if you havent invented "flying" in the past (in medieval times)
-[[User:Joker|Joker]] 00:50, 12 February 2007


Better science: The alien future could be based on biotech, which is particularly susceptible to mediaeval magic, but highly resilient against industrial attacks. -- [[User:Eswald|Eswald]]
Should the Eras overlap at their endpoints? I haven't looked too carefully, but it seems like a card from 1969 could be played onto either the Industrial Age or the Atomic age. [[User:MagiMaster|MagiMaster]] 04:18, 2 May 2007 (BST)
:'''Joe:'''  Good idea. So Biotech is ''minor'' to medieval Magic, medieval Armor and Weapons are ''minor'' to present Weapons and Armor and present Weapons and Armor are ''minor'' to future Biotech. What about the other way around? How can '''present armies beat future''', how can '''medieval fight against present''' and how would '''future crush medieval''' warriors with magic? --[[User:Joeyeti|Joeyeti]] 08:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
::We don't need to make a specific way for the reverse direction.  Just ensure that both sides at least have the possibility to win, but let the rock/paper/scissors model apply as a general tendency.  Wins in the other direction would still occur due to disparities in luck, skill, and/or inclusion of a few cards from the third category. -- [[User:Eswald|Eswald]] 21:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
:: Another option is to have multiple RPS models working at once. For example, small teams beat solos beat mobs beat small teams. So in medieval times, adventurers beat mighty wizards beat mobs. [[User:AnyGould|AnyGould]] 23:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


There could be a card based on the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandfather_Paradox Grandfather Paradox], where if a character is destroyed, then a character from a later era is also destroyed - or which stops an attempt by a character to destroy another from their past. --[[User:James|James]] 12:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
:We can jigger the era ends better once we have enough cards for each one, I guess. [[User:Zaratustra|Zaratustra]] 20:56, 2 May 2007 (BST)
:'''Joe:'''  Good Idea! Of course we have to make the mechanics and dependencies as to which Unit or Thing is depending on what... if that "what" becomes destroyed ''(and/or possibly otherwise influenced?)''. --[[User:Joeyeti|Joeyeti]] 13:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


==Mechanics==
So how can Star Fighters and Stellar Explorers fight fairly against mediaeval peasants and dinosaurs, or even present-day units? I'm beginning to think that "flying" might be a useful keyword to have (so that some units just can't do any damage at all to flying units), but things actually whooshing around in space is maybe pushing that a bit too far, particularly when we have cards like ''Blitzkreig'' being able to damage spaceships.
Maybe we should keep everything within the lower atmosphere, and explain thematically that all time portals open on the ground? --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 18:33, 7 May 2007 (BST)


What cards should exist? Troops? Buildings? Weapons? Armour? State-based effects like Fog and Festivals? What's the object of the game? Is there only one way to win? --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 17:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
:Hm, OK. [[User:Zaratustra|Zaratustra]] 20:02, 7 May 2007 (BST)
:'''Joe:'''  Troops for basic fighting, Buildings for defense, Armour for defense, Weapons for offense, Magic for offense (Medieval), Stand-alone effects (raising attack and/or morale), Time Events (influencing the Battlefield), general Events (influencing certain Rules in the Game or other conditions), Win Conditions (for each Epoch or Army), Lose Conditions (maybe)... Any other Ideas? --[[User:Joeyeti|Joeyeti]] 08:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
:So tightening that up...
:* '''Troop cards'''. Which can be generic soldiers, individual heroes, groups, or monsters. Probably lump "vehicles" in here as well.
:* '''Terrain cards'''. Rather than 'building', it's probably useful to be more generic (and "terrain" could include things like Fog).
:* '''Equipment cards'''. Any card which gets attached permanently to a troop card. Should we lump weapons and armour and gadgets and everything together? Or at least have them as subtypes. Could treat vehicles as equipment, if we're considering them to be driven or piloted by specific troops.
:* '''Event cards'''. As standard Dvorak Actions. Subtypes of "Temporal" for cards that delve into timelines, and "Spell" for magical effects, if we're using magic in the game. (Given that only a small percentage of the troops will be capable of magic, spells probably wouldn't merit an entire card type to themselves.)
:Extra victory conditions can be attached onto random troops or terrains or anythings, if we need them, although we haven't really discussed victory conditions yet. --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 14:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


How are we going to stop cavemen from driving tanks? Give each card a simple Epoch and have a global rule that troops can't operate things that come from a later Epoch? Or give each card a detailed year, and ban a soldier from 1916 from being able to drive a 1941 tank? --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 17:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Moonshot Cannon: This card is way too powerful.  Is it supposed to be able to fire at Units in other Eras?-[[User:Bucky|Bucky]] 00:06, 11 May 2007 (BST)
:'''Joe:'''  We should set some basic Rules for the entire game (whether based on the current Card List - with possible Amendments with future development - or set generally independent of the existing Cards) with some Cards influencing those basic Rules. Depends on the Number of different Epochs. --[[User:Joeyeti|Joeyeti]] 08:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


===Victory conditions===
:I don't know what the intention was (it ''does'' need Fuel), but I think we definitely need to sort out a big, clear assumption somewhere that cards can only affect other cards in the same era, and that Action cards have to be played into a single, specific era. --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 00:49, 11 May 2007 (BST)
Basic question is if Victory Conditions will be set-up for the '''whole game generally''' - like obliterate the enemy, or will be Cards with limited amound in '''each player's deck''' which he would lay down and try to achieve? Another question would be if they '''can be influenced somehow by other players''' or are '''"invulnerable"'''? --[[User:Joeyeti|Joeyeti]] 15:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
:If it's a "war" theme, straight obliteration seems best. We could always some bury some weird and difficult victory conditions in the cards, though, the same way the Magic The Gathering does.
:"Obliteration" is tricky to quantify, though, as both players should have a chance to build up an army before it can be obliterated (if you play a single troop card on your first turn, and I obliterate it with an action card, that shouldn't mean I've won). Giving the players their own life totals and having them attacked directly when they have nothing to defend themselves is the usual way to go. Might be thematically elegant to use the draw piles for this, with direct player damage translating into cards being discarded from the top of the draw pile - your draw pile would be your "time rift", and when there's no longer anything to come through it, you're eliminated from the game. --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 12:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
::'''Actually, good idea Kevan!''' Dont know if any other game uses that, but it is quite original! Thus the player would have no means to prepare any strong cards as he cant see the shuffled deck at the beginning. Only catch would be if he gets only weak or unplayable cards up-front so the opponent can crush him until he catches breath.<br>Therefore we would need to establish a '''mechanism''' maybe '''for building up the armies'''... --[[User:Joeyeti|Joeyeti]] 13:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


:::This mechanism is used (and probably patented) by a horrible Harry Potter-themed CCG.
:: My mistake. There. [[User:Zaratustra|Zaratustra]] 02:20, 11 May 2007 (BST)


:::Decipher used a similar system for the original Star Wars CCG (and the similar Wars TCG) - "damage" was dealt through your deck (cards that you play cycle underneath). [[User:AnyGould|AnyGould]] 03:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Timeline Shift has been massively depowered, as it makes a very bad combo with Chronofold Hounds that can bone the game from the first turn. [[User:Zaratustra|Zaratustra]] 03:34, 13 May 2007 (BST)


I'd like to see some special victory conditions, although there could still be a general one encoded in the rules. A mechanism I was thinking of was a goal which requires you to steal or destroy a particular card or cards, and those cards are in your deck but get played into the control of another player. For example assassinate someone, steal x number of treasures from particular epochs, see x number of wonders of world history, capture villains etc. --[[User:James|James]] 06:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Cybertank - Maybe "This does not need a Soldier to take Unit Actions." should be called "Automated" or something. [[User:JJ12121616|JJ12121616]] 02:14, 8 June 2007 (BST)


: I really like this idea: Wha not have several quests in your deck, ,like those James listes above. For every quest you get 2 points and every advantage button 1 point (see above: structure): Someone with 5 or 6 victory points wins the game  [User:Joker, Joker]. So you can have several tactics: quests or getting buttons like religion, market, technology,... [Mo 12. Feb. 07]
:If more Vehicles show up with such an ability I'll keyword it. - [[User:Zaratustra|Zaratustra]] 05:41, 8 June 2007 (BST)


"Alter the timeline" has some interesting possibilities, but it would be a very different game than "clobber your enemies". [[User:AnyGould|AnyGould]] 03:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC) I agree [User:Joker, Joker]
Extinction Event - Does it have to say "in this Era"? [[User:JJ12121616|JJ12121616]] 02:14, 8 June 2007 (BST)


:Not anymore.  - [[User:Zaratustra|Zaratustra]] 05:41, 8 June 2007 (BST)


The suggestions so far for victory conditions seem to be:
Wooden Horse - "Unit Action: Put a Soldier card from this Unit's original Era into play." from where? [[User:JJ12121616|JJ12121616]] 02:14, 8 June 2007 (BST)


* control a number, or all, eras (in 'time zones for cards' below) - where control means something like 'having units there when no other player does'.
:Your hand. Rephrased. - [[User:Zaratustra|Zaratustra]] 05:41, 8 June 2007 (BST)
* each player having some factor which starts at a high level and is then reduced, with players being eliminated when it reaches zero. This factor may be the cards in the deck itself.
* reaching a victory condition which is specific to the deck - like 'goal cards' in some other games on this site.
--[[User:James|James]] 22:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


* I want to add: be the first to gain future status. Maybe there are 5 zones on the table, represented by cards saying "Middle age" "Future" "Stone Age"... You can develop through the centuries, by reaching the goals of every or the conditions of every era. But Id like the first vc James suggested. Press [[Talk:New_CCG/joker]] to view the subpage
Unequal Trading - Do you get to pick the cards? Are they from the top or anywhere? If you draw a unit this way, how will you play it? If you discard a card that isn't yours, where does it go? When I put the card on my hand, is it on my left or my right? (okay, that one was for fun. But "in" might be better. OCD.) [[User:JJ12121616|JJ12121616]] 02:14, 8 June 2007 (BST)


==Banned mechanics==
:Yeah. Sure, why not. Alternate Universe. Rules don't specify, probably yours. You're very funny.  - [[User:Zaratustra|Zaratustra]] 05:41, 8 June 2007 (BST)


And oh, what format are we developing this for? Apprentice, Gatling, real-pieces-of-cardboard, web-turn-based, or what? We should all be aware of which mechanics and assumptions we can and can't use, accordingly. --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 19:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
::I apologizes if I offended you; Sarcasm is hard over the internet without audio. [[User:JJ12121616|JJ12121616]] 20:39, 8 June 2007 (BST)
:'''Joe:'''  Depends. Best thing would be a basic real-piece-of-cardboard game (for me). If anyone would find or make a Web Client for this, it could be modified for it. Again, only my idea ;) --[[User:Joeyeti|Joeyeti]] 08:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
:'''blunderis:'''  Hey, I'm new around here, but I'm really interested in this idea since is sounds similar to an idea I had once.  With regard to what format we are developing this for: what if we designed the cards as some type of XML document in such a way that it could be implemented on many platforms ranging anywhere from gameboy to web-browser?  My idea is to allow people to design their own cards (by either writing XML by hand or by using some simple card-builder tool).  With card design fully decentralized, everyone would be free to design cards like "Mega-Powerful Beast" or "Your Opponent Dies Instantly".  The solution to this would be the creation of community moderated deck-validators.  These would work kinda like the W3C's XHTML Validator or similar.  The validators would check the XML deck-file against their approved list of cards.  Everyone keeps a whitelist of what validators they trust and when two players meet, they find the intersection of their whitelists, then they submit their decks for approval.  This way, players can only play against other decks that are deemed to be fair by a trusted party.  So this would entail coming up with a simple xml schema like "<deck> consists of 1-N <cards>", "<card> consists of <name><type><abilities>", etc.  Then the groups who build validators would create rules like "<card> with hash 3795hk14j53kg is allowed", "<card> with hash 11s61qbx5fg is allowed no more than 4 times in a <deck>", etc.


==Card Ideas==
:::It's OK, you wouldn't know English is my second language. -- [[User:Zaratustra|Zaratustra]] 03:00, 9 June 2007 (BST)


Card ideas, based on the info so far:
''Ninja''-Does this allow a free attack after another free attack?  If not, you should rephrase it.-[[User:Bucky|Bucky]] 01:45, 24 June 2007 (BST)


'''Card Name:''' Sea / Land / Air
'''Sandglass Desert''':This card seems overpowered to me. It combos too well with any Action that makes you draw cards (such as Timeless Luck or Eureka). It also combos ''extremely'' well with Painkillers.  -[[User:Bucky|Bucky]] 07:48, 15 October 2007 (BST)
  '''Card Type:''' (Thing) Location
  '''Card Text:''' Sea / Land / Air space is brought into play, a conflict can be forged with aquatic / land / air units.
  When this card is destroyed, all remaining aquatic / land / air forces must withdraw to respective player's hand.


''Comments: This card could be destroyed with a Victory Condition or another type of Action Card.''
: Any better? -- [[User:Zaratustra|Zaratustra]] 21:37, 15 October 2007 (BST)


:I think we need to come up with a few very basic cards to get an idea of their scope, before we start throwing out ideas for special ones. (Nobody had even mentioned "locations" or aquatic/land/air troop types, or even troop types at all, before this!) We should pick a range of card types, back in the Mechanics section, so that we know what scopes we're working in. --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 14:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Temple - What is the point of Temple if there are only 2 Holy units in the game?
::'''Joe:'''  I know I know :) I just didnt want to lose that Idea that crept into my mind... happens often you know ;) --[[User:Joeyeti|Joeyeti]] 15:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


== Suggestion ==
: To give aid to those two units? Maybe more holy units will be made later. -- [[User:Zaratustra|Zaratustra]] 01:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Why don't you do a small deck with what you have and see how it works? [[User:Zaratustra|Zaratustra]] 02:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
:I don't think we've got enough of a skeleton yet - we need a victory mechanism and presumably some sort of combat system, before we can know what the cards are going to do. --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 12:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


== Time Zones For Cards ==
War Elephant - Can it kill itself or another War Elephant? [[User:Chenhsi|Chenhsi]] 22:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


* Every Thing has a 'year' which represents 'where' it's meant to be when it comes into play.
:It certainly can. -- [[User:Zaratustra|Zaratustra]] 01:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
* Cards can be said to be 'earlier' or 'later' than each other, and can be said to 'near' each other (eg if they're within 10 years) or not.
* Various cards modify a card's year.


sub-suggestion, based on the film Time Bandits:
Difference Engine - IMO, this card's ability belongs in the Renaissance era.-[[User:Bucky|Bucky]] 07:27, 25 April 2008 (BST)


* fantasy cards have a year of X, and so are 'near' each other but not earlier or later than any other card.
:Perhaps, though Victorian Era doesn't have much of a conducting mechanic. I'll move it if I think of a good flavor for it in the other era. -- [[User:Zaratustra|Zaratustra]] 03:09, 29 April 2008 (BST)


--[[User:James|James]] 06:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Temptation, Defile - Needs nerfing badly.  In the zombie deck, these cards represent a 'pwn anything' defense that other decks just plain can't get around.  Any other Apocalypse-era deck doesn't stand a chance.  I'd suggest completely reworking or removing Temptation and restricting Defile to non-Unit Holy Things. -[[User:Bucky|Bucky]] 00:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


Simpler version of the above, based on the Dream Park role-playing game:
I don't quite get how Crusader's Unit Action is useful, since, as a Unit Action, it replaces combat, so damage or offensive bonuses are useless, and it doesn't last long enough for any stamina or defensive bonuses to work either. It would be better if it just said "Soldier Units you control are Holy", as a constant effect. -- [[User:Corrigan|Corrigan]] 16:07, December 18, 2010 (PST)


* Things have one of a few tags, for example Ancient, Historical, Modern, Futuristic, or Magical. --[[User:James|James]] 07:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
===Cards by BM===


:Tags seem easier and make more sense, I think; there's no reason why a soldier from 1945 couldn't drive an SUV from 2003. Having to pay careful attention to years seems like it'd make deck building more arbitrarily restrictive, and gameplay too easy to make tiny mistakes with.
Your 'Genetical Altering' card is misspelled and apparently you do not want it to be corrected. [[User:Zaratustra|Zaratustra]] 08:28, 5 May 2007 (BST)
:Might be nice to use years and tags at the same time (maybe an Epoch symbol in the corner, with the year printed underneath); years would mostly be an aesthetic detail, but could be invoked for occasional cards like Grandfather Paradox. --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 12:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
::I would also vote for more general Epoch distinction than with years, as 5 or 6 different Epochs are more distinguishable than years. --[[User:Joeyeti|Joeyeti]] 13:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


OK, so perhaps something like this:
:I fixed it, but now I don't think it sounds right. --[[User:BM|BM]] 15:26, 5 May 2007 (BST)


* All Things have two Epoch values: Current Epoch (C.E.), and Originating Epoch (O.E.).
::Card names in CCGs tend to be nouns or present-simple-tense verbs, rather than continuous-tense verbs - "Genetic Alteration" or "Alter Genes", rather than "Genetically Altering". And the possessive "its" doesn't have an apostrophe. --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 15:42, 5 May 2007 (BST)


* C.E. represents where in time the Thing is 'now'. O.E. represents where the Thing comes from.
:::Why did "Genetic Alteration" get put in the timeless cards pile? It says 2000+ and all the other '''n'''+ cards got put in their starting era. --[[User:BM|BM]] 14:42, 8 May 2007 (BST)


* When a card comes into play, its C.E. and O.E. are the same, and are taken from what's printed on the card.
::::Sorry, it just got lost in all the yearless cards when I was rearranging the page. I've moved it. --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 15:09, 8 May 2007 (BST)
::::For what it's worth, this card also falls under the "invisible state effect" problem, and would work more or less equally well as an Equipment card of some sort, that said "This Animal or Soldier gets +2 Damage." --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 16:52, 22 June 2007 (BST)


* Both C.E. and O.E. must always be one of Ancient, Historical, Modern, Futuristic, or Legendary(?)
Tank - Does this mean that a soldier must be "assigned" to a specific vehicle? Or when Tank is destroyed, pick a soldier in the same era as this one and deal 2 wounds to it? [[User:JJ12121616|JJ12121616]] 02:14, 8 June 2007 (BST)


* Things are '''near''' each other if they have the same C.E.
The Butterfly Effect - Can (or should) the first target be yours? [[User:JJ12121616|JJ12121616]] 02:14, 8 June 2007 (BST)


* If there are two Things, and neither of them have an O.E. of Legendary, and their O.E.s are different, if Thing A is from an earlier Epoch than Thing B then Thing A is '''earlier''' than Thing B, and Thing B is '''later''' than Thing A. Note that '''earlier''' and '''later''' are based on O.E. whereas '''near''' is based on C.E. --[[User:James|James]] 17:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
:If that is what this card intends, it should be reworded as something like "Destroy one of your Units. Then choose an opponent's Unit in a later Era to destroy." Actually, I think it would be much more interesting and fun if you had to kill an enemy Unit in combat first, i.e. "You may only play The Butterfly Effect immediately after you destroy a player's Unit in combat. Choose one of that player's Units in a futureward Era to destroy." [[User:Azareon|Azareon]] 21:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
:Interesting; how are you keeping track of CE during the course of a game? You could split the table into physical "zones" and have cards moved between them. Could mark the zones by having "Epoch" cards as part of the game - players can choose up to three to have in their deck, and both players put all their Epoch cards on the table at the start of the game, to divide it up into 3-6 Epochs. --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 18:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


::I was thinking of having cards, which aren't part of the deck but just used as markers, which have the name of an Epoch on them, and they're put under a Thing if that Thing isn't in its original Epoch. --[[User:James|James]] 06:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
===Cards by JoeYeti===


:Moving units around through time opens up some new ideas, and might make for some neat game balance - a Mecha-Colossus is invulnerable in the Future, but if your opponent can force you to fight on his home turf in the Ancient Epoch, there's no electricity to power it and it just gets dismantled by stone axes. --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 18:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Is there a specific reason why ''Timeless Luck'' and ''The Great Unknown'' are picking random cards from the deck, rather than just drawing from the top? --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 12:23, 7 May 2007 (BST)
:Which, hm, maybe suggests a victory mechanism similar to the Provinces in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legend_of_the_Five_Rings_%28collectible_card_game%29#Winning Legend of the Five Rings]; there could be some way for Epochs to be won or lost, and if you lose X of your Epochs, you lose the game. Maybe some mechanic for "closing a rift" if you've achieved supremacy within that Epoch, however we define that - the Epoch card gets flipped over, and you leave your troops trapped in that Epoch to show that you've won it. First to claim more than half the Epochs on the table wins the game. --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 18:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
:Nope, just to make it somewhat interesting... ;) But if the majority disagrees and you feel it is tedious to dive through the whole deck... It can be changed. --[[User:Joeyeti|Joeyeti]] 16:02, 7 May 2007 (BST)
::Not tedious, but if this were being played in something like [[Links#Apprentice]], there'd be no command for "remove a random card from the deck".
::But CCG cards generally interact more effectively if they're kept as simple as possible - if there were other cards that let you put cards on top of your deck, or shuffle it, then ''Timeless Luck'' might be an interesting card to play in conjunction with them. As it is, avoiding the top cards and picking random ones just seems to make it less interesting. (And ''The Great Unknown'' is actually a slightly weaker version of the legendarily weak "Draw one card" action card, which just replaces the card you're playing with a card you could have drawn instead, and uses up your action for that turn.) --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 18:13, 7 May 2007 (BST)
:::Ok, changing the Timeless Luck and erasing The Great Unknown.... --[[User:Joeyeti|Joeyeti]] 08:00, 8 May 2007 (BST)


Your mechanic of "If heads, (this card) is hit" would be clearer as "If tails, the damage is prevented", assuming that's what you meant. --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 18:13, 7 May 2007 (BST)
:As you mention it, is clearer ;) Changed... --[[User:Joeyeti|Joeyeti]] 08:00, 8 May 2007 (BST)


Having looked at my suggestion again, Current Epoch and Originating Epoch could become Location and Origin. The downside being that some games use 'Location' to mean a type of Thing (eg cities or bases), so that type of Thing would need to be called something else.
Deep Forest - How does a unit get "in"? [[User:JJ12121616|JJ12121616]] 02:14, 8 June 2007 (BST)
:Never mind, further reading proved myself an idiot. [[User:JJ12121616|JJ12121616]] 18:26, 9 June 2007 (BST)
===Cards by Bucky===


The earlier/later mechanism might be a bit complicated. Although it suggests some interesting cards. --[[User:James|James]] 06:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
"Unique" would certainly be a useful keyword, but you've got it as both "You can only have one of these in each Era." and "You can only have one of these in play at a time." - I think the former's probably more fun, for a time-travel game. --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 17:44, 9 May 2007 (BST)
:'''Joe:''' I would say it is enough to mark the Cards with '''Origin'''. As they will be played they could be collected in front of the player above a '''Supplemental Current Epoch Card''' as you suggested above. Then all players would battle in various Epochs (if they would have the Cards in that Epoch - marked with their Supplemental Cards) with the units they have in that Epoch. If none, then a player would not participate in that Epoch Battle. --[[User:Joeyeti|Joeyeti]] 10:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
:I think if we use Epoch marker cards to divide the table up, it'll be easy enough to see which are earlier and later - we can put the actual years on the marker cards, since the cards are only aesthetic, and players would only have to arrange them in the right order once, at the beginning of the game. Once you're playing, it's easy enough to see that all the cards to the right of the "Mediaeval" battlefield are in its future. (Although I'm not sure how weird it'll be to have one player viewing the timeline from the wrong side, if they're facing each other across a table. It'd be fine in online engines, though.) --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 13:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
::'''Joe:'''  Or the Epoch cards could be of a different Colour to be distinguishable, with a possible small Patch of the Colour of the Epoch that is "inferior" to that one. Say, '''Future is Dark Blue''' and '''Present is Dark Green'''. Then '''Future''' would have a '''patch of Dark Green''' on the right side of the Title to indicate '''it "can" beat the Present''' (or is in some cases stronger against it).  --[[User:Joeyeti|Joeyeti]] 13:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
:::That would limit the insertion of later Epochs, which seems needlessly restrictive. If we give them start years and end years, it's easy enough to sort them by "start year" when playing them out across the table. --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 11:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
::::'''Joe:'''  Maybe giving '''''Centuries''''' rather than start and end Years.... I dont think that much things change in a Century ;)  --[[User:Joeyeti|Joeyeti]] 12:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


Given the nature of these cards (i.e. affects all later eras), having two in different eras would make them far too powerful.  Two Biotech Labs could use the same prerequisite labs yet give your troops in the later era 9x the Stamina, which is too much. -[[User:Bucky|Bucky]] 20:11, 9 May 2007 (BST)


I've got a few ideas on this.
:Make it two keywords, then. I didn't even notice they had different rulings. [[User:Zaratustra|Zaratustra]] 21:08, 9 May 2007 (BST)


*Only three times: Medieval (1000 AD), Present (2000 AD), Future (3000 AD). The first has knights, magicians and dragons; the second had guns, tanks and a lot of available recruits; the third has aliens, robots and lazers.
:You could rephrase the cards so that the modifier only applies once, although it'd take a lot of rephrasing. Perhaps some sort of "required" keyword would be useful (meaning "must have these other things in play in current or earlier eras, before you can play this"), so that you could just say something like "Biotechnology Lab. Unique. Requires Secret Research Lab, Chemistry Lab and Nanotechnology Lab. A Soldier that has any Biotechnology Labs in its current or earlier Eras has its stamina tripled." --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 00:59, 10 May 2007 (BST)


*You can be in a different period than your Opponent(s). You have to chase them (or vice-versa) around the timeline. You may not need cards representing epochs.
Are the more advanced Lab cards too powerful?  Or are the earlier ones not powerful enough?  Or are they all too strong?-[[User:Bucky|Bucky]] 21:35, 9 May 2007 (BST)


*Times are significant because you can't face off against your Opponent if they're a millenium behind you (though you may do a little damage if they're in front of you, by invoking the Grandfather Paradox).
:Time to make a deck and test! [[User:Zaratustra|Zaratustra]] 22:42, 9 May 2007 (BST)


*You cannot recruit new creatures/pawns/Things from another time period without invoking a special card or getting rid of Time Points (or something like that). However, when you zip off to another era, they (aside from your fortresses, which stay there until your return) come with you. Thus, you can wander around the timeline with a well-rounded crew, or fortify yourself in the Future and try to make your Opponents come to you.
:: One problem I can see is that labs effecting later Eras have little use in the farther end of the timeline. [[User:Zaratustra|Zaratustra]] 23:03, 9 May 2007 (BST)


*A possible victory condition: You have a agent in/from each time period, and your enemy(s) have none. The game could be made harder to win too quickly by putting five madatory moves between each timejump.
:::That's one of the balancing factors.  In order to take full advantage of them, you need to move them back through time.  Not only is this ether dangerous and time consuming(i.e. shipping buildings through enemy territory) or reliant on luck (i.e. using Time Warp), but early in the timeline it is more vulnerable to a blundering Dinosaur. -[[User:Bucky|Bucky]] 03:09, 10 May 2007 (BST)


-[[User:Depressi|Depressi]]
Won't Time Fly die as soon as it's played? -- [[User:Zaratustra|Zaratustra]] 07:44, 24 May 2007 (BST)


=== Zara's Proposal ===
:To quote the rules, "If a card ever sustains a number of wound counters that ''exceed'' its Stamina, it is destroyed." (emphasis added) The Time Fly will not die until it receives a wound.-[[User:Bucky|Bucky]] 16:20, 24 May 2007 (BST)


* Time periods are cards played on table, kind of like lands from Magic. They represent a gate to that time zone. You need the 20th Century card to play Tanks, or Cenozoic Era to play T-Rexes, for example.
::Oh, tut, I think that was just me wording things carelessly - I don't think it makes any intuitive sense for a Stamina 3 unit to require four wounds before it dies. Any objections to the rule being reworded to the originally-intended "equal or exceed"? --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 16:32, 24 May 2007 (BST)


* Two approaches I can see for combat:
:::Everyone will understand it that way anyway, so might as well. -- [[User:Zaratustra|Zaratustra]] 19:03, 24 May 2007 (BST)


** Magic standard - all creatures in the same nexus, all fight each other.
::::Now this throws the game balance off, since it greatly increases the one-hit kill opportunities.  That one extra wound made a rather large difference, especially for weaker units, but everyone just lost at least a quarter of their stamina.-[[User:Bucky|Bucky]] 20:56, 24 May 2007 (BST)


** Time specific - You need to send creatures to a specific time zone and attack their targets there. Time zones' ownership could be moved around as players win and lose battles.
:::::Anyone who was designing their cards under the same system as you can just bump the numbers up by one. Personally, all my cards were designed for the "equal or exceed" wording. --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 22:24, 24 May 2007 (BST)


[[User:Zaratustra|Zaratustra]] 20:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Does "Stamina: 1/4" (presumably "¼"?) add anything that couldn't be achieved through "Stamina: 1. Time Fly's stamina may not be increased."? Given that there's no reason why future cards couldn't include mechanics like "heal wound counters equal to the stamina of target unit", a single fractional value is liable to pollute and confuse the rest of the game. --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 09:23, 25 May 2007 (BST)


=A sample card=
Zombie - Zombie with mana? Just a personal issue I guess. [[User:JJ12121616|JJ12121616]] 02:14, 8 June 2007 (BST)


Here's a proposed format for military cards, and a sample card using that format.  Edit it as necessery. 
I had an idea to make labs more modular. See what you think -- [[User:Zaratustra|Zaratustra]] 02:23, 6 October 2007 (BST)


{{Card
{{Card
| title = Name(Era)
| title = Materials Science Lab
| text = Modifiers;l TS (Strength in past)/(Strength in present)/(Strength in furure)
| text = '''Stamina: 7'''<br><br>If you control three Labs in this Era or earlier, all your Terrains in this Era or later have Armor 2.
| type = Thing - Sample
| type = Terrain - Unique
| bgcolor =009
| bgcolor = 00AA00
| creator = Bucky
| minicard=true
}}
}}


{{Card
{{Card
| title = Light Tank (Present)
| title = Chemistry Lab
| text = Motorized, Armored, Requires Fuel; TS 50/30/5
| text = '''Stamina: 7'''<br><br>If you control three Labs in this Era or earlier, all your Vehicles in this Era or later gain have twice the Fuel and Battery.
| type = Thing
| type = Terrain - Unique Lab
| bgcolor =009
| bgcolor = 00AA00
| creator = Bucky
| minicard=true
}}
}}


Any epochs other than Past Present and Future could do something like "Treat Electric and Limited Ammo units as if they were in Past, Magic units as if they were in the Future, and all other units as if they were in the Present."
{{Card
PS: How do I do a newline inside of a template? -[[User:Bucky|Bucky]] 06:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
| title = Nanotechnology Lab
| text = '''Stamina: 6'''<br><br>If you control three Labs in this Era or earlier, all your Vehicles in this Era or later have Regeneration 1.
| type = Terrain - Unique Lab
| bgcolor = 00AA00
| minicard=true
}}


{{Card
| title = Engineering Lab
| text = '''Stamina: 7'''<br><br>Vehicles in this Era or later gain +1 Stamina for each Lab you control in this Era or earlier.
| type = Terrain - Unique Lab
| bgcolor = 00AA00
| minicard=true
}}


{{Card
{{Card
| title = Shaman (Stone Age)
| title = Energy Physics Lab
| text = Counts as 1 Religionpoint / 2 Defense
| text = '''Stamina: 6'''<br><br>Vehicles in this Era or later gain +1 Damage for each Lab you control in this Era or earlier.
Action: sacrifice one card (lay down under the shaman) and you get
| type = Terrain - Unique Lab
1 Religionpoint and the shaman has 1 more defense
| bgcolor = 00AA00
Needs: at least 2 other persons in the same age
| minicard=true
| type = Person - Special
| bgcolor =009
| creator = Joker
}}
}}


{{Card
{{Card
| title = Cathedral (Middle Age)
| title = Biotechnology Lab
| text = You get 2 Religionpoints and 1 Politics
| text = '''Stamina: 6'''<br><br>Soldiers in this Era or later gain +1 Stamina for each Lab you control in this Era or earlier.
< >
| type = Terrain - Unique Lab
Needs: Shaman, Prophet or Priest
| bgcolor = 00AA00
| type = Thing - Building
| minicard=true
| bgcolor =009
}}
| creator = Joker}}
 
<br clear=all>
I'd prefer something that keeps the heirarchy of labs - maybe using something like this -[[User:Bucky|Bucky]] 02:35, 6 October 2007 (BST)


{{Card
{{Card
| title = Ballista (Middle Age)
| title = Biotechnology Lab
| text = Block one building (of creating persons in the same age or making damage)
| text = '''Stamina: 6'''<br> This is a level 3 Lab.<br><br>If you control a level 2 Lab in this Era or earlier, Soldiers in this Era or later have their Stamina doubled.
Needs: Something that chops wood or a genius person?
| type = Terrain - Unique Lab
| type = Thing - Warfare
| bgcolor = 00AA00
| bgcolor =009
| minicard=true
| creator = Joker}}
}}
 
<br clear=all>
 
Why do past labs affect modern labs?
 
===Cards by Cait===
You shouldn't be allowed to play Timeline Shatter into an opponent's Era, which the current wording and rules seem to allow.-[[User:Bucky|Bucky]] 03:54, 13 May 2007 (BST)
 
===Cards by Kevan===
 
Count Schreck - Do the normal placement rules apply, do you put it in the same era as the count, or can you put it anywhere? [[User:JJ12121616|JJ12121616]] 02:14, 8 June 2007 (BST)
:Maybe we need to tighten up the base rules, but the rule about Things only being able to "see" the Era they're in should also cover the fact that a "put into play" effect of a Thing would be restricted to that era. I'll think about a good wording for it. --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 10:09, 8 June 2007 (BST)
 
Scavenger Team - Does the target being moved to have to be able to use such a counter? If NAME gets a mana counter, does NAME now need to remove mana counters to activate, and can it then not move without mana? [[User:JJ12121616|JJ12121616]] 02:14, 8 June 2007 (BST)
:The "Resources" rule says that fuel is only drained if a Unit has a fuel value "defined". This is a bit ambiguous, but even if you read having a token as having a value defined, it'll become undefined as soon as the token is spent. --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 10:09, 8 June 2007 (BST)
::So will the token stay until moved or spent upon the next usage of that unit? In my opinion, it should just stay. [[User:JJ12121616|JJ12121616]] 20:39, 8 June 2007 (BST)
 
Solar Panel: This card is massively more powerful than any of the other Battery replenishing buildings to the point where it could make the rest a waste of deck space.  It may have low Stamina, but the fact that it can fully replenish one Unit's Battery as a free action every turn makes it way too powerful in my opinion.  One idea is to make the Solar Panel read: "At the start of your turn, you may discard X cards. If you do so, replenish X Battery to one Unit."  This would reflect the high cost of Solar Paneling in real life, keep the cards balanced, and add interesting variety to the Battery replenishing mechanics. [[User:Azareon|Azareon]] 09:39, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 
===Cards by jtwe===
 
''Gray Goo'': If the Gray Goo card itself is removed, what happens?  Do the goo tokens still in play continue to reproduce?  Or just vanish?  Or remain there, inert, until the card gets played again?  Or some other possibility I'm not thinking of? --[[User:Tweed Cap|Tweed Cap]] 15:23, 25 April 2008 (BST)
:Remain there inert, because it doesn't say otherwise.  I have to imagine that actually PLAYING with this card would be supremely irritating.  I have no idea why I keep thinking up cards like that. [[User:Jtwe|Jtwe]] 15:55, 25 April 2008 (BST)
 
===Cards by Corrigan===
 
I received a message from Bucky saying that most of the batch of cards I recently added were of "poor quality", by which, I assume, he meant they were overpowered. I've since toned down most of them (though it pained me to add mana to Giant) and deleted some altogether. I hope they are now more acceptable, but not too severely nerfed. Also, how much freedom can be given for Unique cards? I didn't change Michael, and I worry that he's overpowered even as a Unique card. -- [[User:Corrigan|Corrigan]] 15:22, December 18 (PST)
 
:You added a bunch of off-theme cards (like the mythological Antiquity Animals), ignored a few conventions (Aerial units not named 'Dragon' are fragile, as are Renaissance soldiers), and, yes, had some overpowered (e.g. Historic Charge - compare to the 'ordinary' Charge!), mechanically broken (Legend - making a card Unique while it's in play and you have another one has an undefined result) and useless (specific example no longer present) cards.  Overall, it felt like you hadn't actually played the game before making the cards.
 
 
:As for Unique cards, they typically get a small (+1.5 stat) bonus for being unique.  In the specific case of Michael, that does *not* excuse an External Soldier being so much better than the Era-specific Unique soldier (Hero) in terms of base states.  Additionally, Aerial units (and Soldiers!) just don't have Dino-sized toughness without help, even with a minor (in this case completely avoidable) drawback.-[[User:Bucky|Bucky]] 01:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 
::Addendum: Jetpack Infantry is just a tad below 'fair' for an Aerial Soldier with no fuel.  Michael needs to be reconcepted or gets nerfed to 1/1.  I think the best solution is 0/2 with an awesome ability.-[[User:Bucky|Bucky]] 01:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 
Sorry, I didn't think that the mythological creatures would be off-theme (I saw that there were fantasy creatures in the Middle Ages and the Victorian Era, so I didn't think there would be these kinds of restrictions). I've deleted all of the mythological creatures, and I've added a Senate card which is more in keeping with the Antiquity theme.
 
I also appreciate you toning down some of my cards, but now that Michael is powered down, he's hardly extraordinary. An Archer can take him down in one shot; I'm considering giving him Armor 1 and replacing his Profane Bane ability to something a bit less situational, but not overwhelming. -- [[User:Corrigan|Corrigan]] 23:36, December 18, 2010 (PST)
 
:With armor 1, Michael is indeed overwhelming.  Even without armor 1, Michael still breaks too many design rules (e.g. no Mesozoic soldiers, no Aerial vehicle drivers, Aerials have lower stats, Everywhen cards are slightly worse than era-specific ones)-[[User:Bucky|Bucky]] 20:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 
 
Reenact - This gives Renaissance decks better access to Antiquity's best soldiers than Antiquity decks, thanks to the search ability.  It would probably also require nerfs to several Antiquity-era Soldiers like Hero and General, but I can't tell for sure without playing a few games. Please tone it down. (suggestion: play the soldier from hand and/or set its stamina to 1.)-[[User:Bucky|Bucky]] 02:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 
 
Spike Trap - I feel like this should give one of your soldiers the animal's Game effect and maybe be soldier-powered.  Your call.--[[User:ChippyYYZ|ChippyYYZ]] 22:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 
Flux Strain is game-breaking in the first two turns and has no 'fair' uses.  I've moved it to the talk page in case you want to rework it. -[[User:Bucky|Bucky]] 05:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
{{card|title=Flux Strain|type=Terrain - Timeless|text='''Stamina: 3'''<br> Whenever there are no Units in an Era, turn that Era Portal face-down.|creator=Corrigan|bgcolor=0a0|flavortext=Maintaining these portals is an energy-consuming task. There's no reason to keep portals open if they lead to wastelands.}} <br clear=all>
 
 
====Stone Age====
I see you've created a new era.  While this isn't necessarily bad, it does mean you need to come up with at least one reasonable offense card that's distinct from the other eras' offense.-[[User:Bucky|Bucky]] 02:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 
:Now that you've built it out a bit more... it still doesn't seem to have any real offensive capabilities.-[[User:Bucky|Bucky]] 23:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 
===Card limit===
 
we need a limit on card copies in the deck. I was destroyed by a deck with 20 Timeline Shifts and 20 Chronofold Hounds. {{unsigned|Zaratustra|02:27, 13 May 2007}}
:I suppose this is fixed now that the cards have been changed. I'm not sure if the fact that a deck with massively-multiple cards is a sign of a broken deck-construction rule, or a broken card design - it does seem to come up for every CCG we try to make, though, so maybe it should just be a fixed default rule for all CCG sets, even if it does mean we're copying Magic the Gathering. (Do many other CCGs have copies-per-deck limit?) --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 12:47, 14 May 2007 (BST)
::From a cursory glance, Yugioh and Naruto have a 3-card limit. Mostly, it's a way to prevent a single overpowered card creating an entire degenerate deck. I suppose we could try a few games without a card limit? [[User:Zaratustra|Zaratustra]] 20:20, 14 May 2007 (BST)
:::Massively-multiple card decks tend to be brittle, especially if there are global rules cards.  Or, they are the result of carefully balanced card combos that are easily upset, just like other powerful decks.  If you look closely at my obsolete Alchemy deck, it worked not only because of the critical mass of Tea and Gargle Blaster but also on account of several other combos folded neatly into the victory conditions.  If certain cards are too powerful in large numbers, we can restrict them on a case-by-case basis (like the Lab cards) or reword them to avoid the complication (e.g. "You may only play one Action Splitter per turn").  On the other hand, if we restrict all decks this way, we cut out other valid, nonbroken strategies (like a zombie horde deck).  I think we should recommend it for new CCGs until the kinks get worked out, but not mandate it.
:::However, there is another type of deck which we should ban, one with exactly six Actions and fewer than 10 or so Things.  This type of deck is inherently broken because once all your things are played you know exactly what you're drawing next turn.-[[User:Bucky|Bucky]] 06:43, 16 May 2007 (BST)
:::: You'll notice there's already a minimum of 40 cards in the deck. [[User:Zaratustra|Zaratustra]] 08:07, 16 May 2007 (BST)
 
Maybe certain cards (ones like Zombie or Cavalry, whose texts make specific reference to having multiples in your deck) could be exempt from number-of-copies rules, or more copies could be allowed than normal to keep horde decks viable. Furthermore, certain cards could be restricted so that fewer copies than normal would be allowed. It sounds complicated, but it would allow more creativity through access to powerful cards without being completely busted. -- [[User:Corrigan|Corrigan]]
 
===Playtesting===
I played a round against a friend today. He played the Spartan Labs one (mostly using Antique cards as he wasn't very sure how the game worked) and I played a Werewolves with Guns Victorian/World War game.
 
Some thoughts:
 
* Vehicles don't warp with their drivers. Generals don't follow their armies, though that's probably for the best else things get mighty fast.
* Reinforced Bunker is tough.
* The best strategy against a massive army seems to wait for the enemy to Maelstrom into your Era and then warp off to kill their portal.
 
[[User:Zaratustra|Zaratustra]] 04:03, 17 May 2007 (BST)
 
===Card combos===
How many effective combos are there in this set?  A few of them are devastating weapons but require quite unlikely setups, but I only know of a few small combos work well.
 
*Double/Triple Swarm Attack: Painkillers + General + General(s) + troops: One General with boosted Stamina makes one or more lesser generals to act, letting an army move and attack on the same turn.
 
*Research Lab series + Wrinkle: The Labs are there specifically for combos, but the Wrinkle allows the Labs to affect the entire timeline.
 
*Hardened Bunker + Secret Research Lab + Materials Science Lab: There isn't much you can do to a Terrain with Armor 4, and the Labs also have Armor 2.  This combo is best used to cover an invasion: send a Trenched Bunker in first, then move your troops in one by one under the protection of the Bunker.  When you're ready to attack, warp out the bunker.
 
-[[User:Bucky|Bucky]] 18:58, 17 September 2007 (BST)
 
:Well, that last combo there is entirely your own creation. As for the other ones, I suggest trying to make a deck and see how it works in game. -- [[User:Zaratustra|Zaratustra]] 22:05, 17 September 2007 (BST)
 
===Cards by HellFalen===
I've moved your cards to the talk page because they don't work in the current card set.  Three of them have massive power-level concerns, amounting to an instant win if you play one, and the other of them doesn't work:
 
{{Card
| title = Portal Failure
| type = Action
| bgcolor = AA0000
| creator = HellFalen
| text = When you draw this card, destroy an era portal of your oponents.
}}
 
{{Card
| title = Buterfly effect
| type = Action
| bgcolor = AA0000
| creator = HellFalen
| text = When you draw this card, destroy all the things ao an oponents and give to him 3 things from the deck
}}
 
{{Card
| title = Calculation Error
| type = Action
| bgcolor = AA0000
| creator = HellFalen
| text = Change an era potal of your oponent and destroy alls his things}}
 
{{Card
| title = Born in 1972 and die in 1235
| type = Action
| bgcolor = AA0000
| creator = HellFalen
| text = You can draw a card from the futurefrom the deck}}
<br clear=all>
Portal failure and Calculation Error permanently remove your opponent's access to at least 1/3 of their cards.  Butterfly Effect implies that you get to chose the 3 things (and the deck they come from); you can use it to render them completely helpless in an era.  It takes a bit more work to kill them off than the first two, but it still wins the game assuming your opponent doesn't also play one of your 3 gamebreakers.  Born in 1972 may be usable, but it isn't clear what's going on due to poor wording.-[[User:Bucky|Bucky]] 01:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 
I think that we could re-word Born in 1972 to say "Search your deck for a card and play it onto an Era before its home Era." If I had to guess, I would say that that's its intended effect. -- [[User:Corrigan|Corrigan]] 15:53, December 18, 2010 (PST)
 
===Cards by Ariev===
The Fighter Plane (Industrial) does exactly the same thing as the Fighter Bomber and Fighter Jet appearing in later Eras, but it is more powerful.  In my opinion, this should be balanced by weakening it.  Planes at this time were pretty frail and had limited fuel in reality, so the Fighter Jet should be an improvement. [[User:Azareon|Azareon]] 09:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 
===Symbols (Recommendation by Doc Immortal)===
You may want to use symbols for things that are frequently referenced on cards to reduce wordiness.  For example,
if some cards have defense power, a symbol can be used with a number over the symbol that tells you how much defense that card produces.
 
I dummied up some symbols for cards that have the following: 1 defense (shows a shield), 1 politics (shows the planet i.e. world domination), 1 religious power (shows generic religious symbol), 1 damage (shows something being destroyed), 1 endurance (shows a flexed arm).  Obviously, something with 2 defense will have a 2 instead of a 1 and so on.  They icons are not pretty but once someone knows what a symbol means, they can quickly identify a card's abilities at a glance.  These symbols should be used for basic abilities.  Advance stuff should remain in text form.
 
[[Image:ChronogeddonSymbols.gif|center]]
 
[[User:Doc Immortal|Doc Immortal]] 08:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 
== Holy/Profane/Unholy ==
 
Just a suggestion -- to me, "profane" means "secular".  I'd suggest replacing the word with "unholy", which seems to be more what you want. 
 
-- [[User:Wayland|Wayland]] 09:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 
== Additional Rules - Physical Challenge ==
 
Hi.  I just thought I'd mention that I've just developed the [[Additional Rules - Physical Challenge]], which is a set of additional optional rules and definitions which I hope will be well suited to a wide range (but certainly not all) Dvorak games.  It seems to me that Chronogeddon could, with minimal effort, be modified to align with these (since I took lots of ideas from Chronogeddon).  Mostly it's a matter of rewording some of the existing material.  If you're happy for this to happen, but don't want to put in the time, please let me know. 
 
-- [[User:Wayland|Wayland]] 04:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 
== So what's the goal? ==


My proposal: there are 4 or 5 ages, and several buttons you fight for
How do you win this game? I don't seem to see…
Religion, Market, Politics, Technology, Land... Some just can be played, when you have the superiority in the needed advantage.
: And now I've prompted its addition to the page. Thanks! [[User:Lenoxus|Lenoxus]] 03:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
In the stone age just religion and land is important. Maybe later Technology and politics are more required advantages. They can only be played in their special era and maybe are required "in the future" -[[User:Joker|Joker]] 13 February 2007

Latest revision as of 23:19, 11 February 2013

Hammer and spanner.gif

This deck is currently under construction. The basic mechanics are still liable to change, but we're creating cards to flesh the game out. Feel free to add cards that fit the existing mechanics, or add minor new mechanics, but don't add any major mechanics or change any existing ones without discussing them first on the talk page.

Old talk on this subject has been archived.
Joker's thoughts are at Talk:New CCG/joker.

Project status?

So what's happening with this? Do people think we've got enough material to put some coherent first-draft rules up on the main article page, and make enough cards for an alpha-test set? --Kevan 16:52, 26 March 2007 (BST)

I think so. --Depressi
Me too. --James 19:34, 6 April 2007 (BST)
So... who does it? Zaratustra 01:10, 10 April 2007 (BST)
I'd be happy to, but I'd say James got first refusal, as he started the project. --Kevan 12:22, 10 April 2007 (BST)
Sorry - I've been staying away from this for a while, so that it doesn't become 'my game'. --James 12:14, 1 May 2007 (BST)
No problem. I'll try to summarise what we've got, then. Any votes for a title? I think my money's still on Chronowar or Chronogeddon. --Kevan 13:09, 1 May 2007 (BST)

I've added a rough draft of rules and a few example cards that fit them. They're probably a bit biased towards how I was seeing the game progressing, so take me to task on anything I've misinterpreted. --Kevan 14:05, 1 May 2007 (BST)

After looking through everything for possible strategies, I've written up what I found here. As of right now, it looks like the later eras have far more offensive options than the earlier ones. Victorian and Renaissance eras have the fewest. -Bucky 01:46, 9 September 2008 (BST)

Game needs a name

Okay, we really should get a name sorted out for this. Fire out some suggestions and we'll take a vote. --Kevan 00:57, 9 May 2007 (BST)

Uchronia. Zaratustra 03:27, 9 May 2007 (BST)
Anachronic, Anachronix. Zaratustra 03:27, 9 May 2007 (BST)
Aetas (from latin translation of Era) Joeyeti 07:29, 9 May 2007 (BST)
Chronowar, Chronogeddon. Kevan 11:34, 9 May 2007 (BST)
Chronocide --BM 15:56, 9 May 2007 (BST)
Temporal Chaos! (Any similarity to names of recently released Magic: the Gathering sets is purely coincidental, I'm sure.) Jtwe 17:48, 9 May 2007 (BST)
Bellum Aetarum, an expanded version of Joeyeti's suggestion-Bucky 03:10, 10 May 2007 (BST)
which stands for? Zaratustra 08:18, 10 May 2007 (BST)
OSCAR - Open-Source Cards and Rules. --James 18:42, 19 May 2007 (BST)
Epochalypse Leeham

Maybe each person could pick their top three or top five amongst all names, their own included? Zaratustra 00:49, 26 June 2007 (BST)

Sounds good. Mine, in descending order: Chronogeddon, Anachronix, Chronowar, Uchronia, Chronocide. --Kevan 18:57, 23 July 2007 (BST)
Uchronia, Chronogeddon, Aetas, Chronowar, Anachronix. -- Zaratustra 17:13, 24 July 2007 (BST)
Using the Condorcet method I've deduced that nobody else gives a damn about the name of the thing. Should we pick Chronoggedon and be done with it or wait for more people to manifest? -- Zaratustra 02:47, 8 August 2007 (BST)
Another month later, and yes, we might as well, we can always change it back if other people suddenly wake up and vote strongly for something else. It's a better working title than "New CCG". --Kevan 11:09, 6 September 2007 (BST)

How about Timescape, Eternal Combat, Cataclysmic Glory, Chrono Warriors or just Timeline? I also like Chronowar, Anachronix and Uchronia but my only beef with Chronogeddon was it was hard to pronounce at first glance. Aetherknight 15:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Year numbers vs. abbreviations

Year numbers make setting decks more complicated than it needs to be... should they be abbreviated to a letter or number correspondent to their particular Era? Zaratustra 00:54, 17 July 2007 (BST)

I think the reasoning behind the different years on the cards was originally to act as another balancing trait to weight down stronger cards and making them harder to play. But like Zaratustra is basically saying the way the game is set up now the difference between -250 M and -70 M is non-existent. The way I see it I suggest we should do one of three things. 1)Change to abbreviations. 2)Make sub-eras that would make a disparity in years and separate cards, maybe having a rule that says closing one end of a portal be killing an earlier half (-250 M, -100 M] [-99 M, -65 M) or else that would make it different but not impossible 3)Make more cards that specify differences on card years. Being a MTG player and releasing the slight different of 1GG and 2G is very dramatic but often times can make games more fair and allow for more powerful yet unbroken cards I vote for 3. Maybe something like
1299
Paige
Unit - Soldier
Play this card only if you control a Soldier unit older than this.

Stamina: 1
Unit Action: Remove 3 damage from a Soldier. You may not play this ability your next turn

Action:A soldier in this era may take damage in place of this.
He's learned two things so far: Attend to his master, and hide behind him.
Card by Aetherknight
-100M
Hungry Super Raptors
Unit-Animal
When this comes into play destroy all Units older than this card

Damage 3
Stamina 3
If this card did not attack or was not attacked put a hunger counter on it. 2 hunger counters destroys it.

Action: Destroy an animal you control in the same time period as this, heal 1 and remove a hunger counter from this.
Card by Aetherknight
Test of time
Action
Target player picks an era. Destroy the oldest unit in it.
All great things must come to an end.
Card by Aetherknight
-[*]
Alien Artifact
Thing
This card's year is -Infinity but can be played in any era. When this card is destroyed draw 2 cards.
Unlock its mysterious splendor.
Card by Aetherknight

Sorry they're not all mini-cards; the corner value compressed the text too much. I'd love to hear what you guys think and maybe I'll add a few cards of my own.
Aetherknight 15:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Game Mechanics

v1.0

Two things I didn't cover when writing up the rules, but which have been discussed a bit - Resources and the Rock-Paper-Scissor trinity.

Resources would mean that certain units required access to particular resources to function, which would put them at a disadvantage if they were travelling to an unfamiliar Era where they couldn't refuel. One way to implement this would be to agree on a fixed set of resources, and write them on Era cards (with room for having Terrains or Units which could create that resource in alien time periods), and then say things like "If in an Era without a Nuclear resource, Mech Destroyer takes 3 wounds whenever it attacks."

Off the top of my head, resources could be: Coal, Electricity, Nuclear. And if we're going with magical powers, some hazy "Magic" or "Psychic" resource, which tends to be only available in ancient history and/or the far future.

Which might be a way to create a rock-paper-scissor trinity at the same time:-

  • Present-Day units have the edge over Historical units because they have better weapons that don't always need particular fuel.
  • Far-Future units have an edge over Present-Day units because the present day has raidable Electricity and Nuclear power sources.
  • Historical units have an edge over Far-Future units, because Mechs don't run very well in the 4th century (and possibly because ancient shamans can use powerful magical attacks against neo-psychics).

I'm not sure that's entirely balanced or coherent, but it seems like it might be a useful direction. --Kevan 16:07, 1 May 2007 (BST)

Some more suggestions:
  • Pre-historic: Pros - Strongest resourceless creatures, terrain destruction. Cons - Can't close portals on their own, operate vehicles or get useful tools
  • Ancient Ages: Pros - Fast creature placement, units gain strength in numbers. Cons - Individually weak creatures.
  • Medieval Ages: Pros - Creature summoning and banishing, ???. Cons - Dependent on mana for fancy stuff
  • Renaissance: Pros - Vehicle/Terrain summoning, ???. Cons - ???
  • Victorian Age: Pros - Versatile, good with Animal manipulating?. Cons - Scattered, cards don't support each other well
  • Industrial Age: Pros - Strong vehicles, defensive terrain, blitz tactics. Cons - ???
  • Modern Age: Pros - Strong vehicles, good terrains. Cons - Very dependent on resources and terrains to do any real damage
  • Apocalyptic: Pros - Good at recovering stuff from discard pile or otherwise benefiting from unit deaths. Cons - Overall frail
  • Space Age: Pros - Strongest creatures and vehicles. Cons - Very dependent on Energy.
Zaratustra 06:37, 2 May 2007 (BST)
Sounds good, particularly if the Far-Future is more reliant on terrain cards, so more vulnerable to blundering dinosaurs (and maybe mediaeval siege weapons?).
And the Fuel and Battery system looks good; a nice way to allow "power cards" that don't become fully useful until you play other cards. Not sure if they'd benefit from entering play unfuelled by default, perhaps with the power-station Terrains saying that "X-powered Units enter play with full X." --Kevan 16:02, 2 May 2007 (BST)

If a face down era is turned face down, is it destroyed? JJ12121616 02:14, 8 June 2007 (BST)

No. - Zaratustra 05:35, 8 June 2007 (BST)

If two players both have the same era in play, how does gameplay function? Do both eras count as one? Are they seperate, such as my portal could be closed while yours is open? Are they together in occupancy or do they function as two seperate eras, both with a diffrent location in the timeline? If so, what order do they go in? JJ12121616 02:14, 8 June 2007 (BST)

Yes, yes, together. It's one era with two portals, I don't see the problems people have with it. - Zaratustra 05:35, 8 June 2007 (BST)
No problems, just wanted clarification for play testing. JJ12121616 20:39, 8 June 2007 (BST)

Can you use your action then your thing, or is the thing required to be played first? JJ12121616 04:08, 9 June 2007 (BST)

Either way as per standard dvorak rules. - Zaratustra 05:54, 9 June 2007 (BST)

Can you attack your own Units? Chenhsi 06:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Flight?

I'm thinking that "Flying" might be a useful keyword, so that there's a clear mechanic saying that a ground-based unit can't do much damage to a flying one, that a Tyrannosaurus isn't going to do very well against a B-12 Bomber. We could change "damage" stats into "Ranged damage" and "Close-combat damage" (or something), allow units to pick which type they use when they attack, and define "Flying" as meaning "Prevent all close-combat damage, unless it comes from another Flying Unit."

What do people think? --Kevan 18:40, 7 May 2007 (BST)

This could also be tied in to the idea of the Future Eras requiring Terrain support, if Flying Units required an Airstrip or Launchpad to be in play, before they could be played themselves (which would also allow Flying Units to be powerful against ground troops, without being unbalanced). --Kevan 15:25, 8 May 2007 (BST)
Hm. To avoid numberitis, I'd suggest just adding (melée), (range) or (melée/range) to the Damage tag of cards. Flying could mean 'can only attack at range and be attacked by range attacks'. This would allow for units that are only damaged by close-range, too. - Zaratustra 20:25, 20 May 2007 (BST)
That works. --Kevan 16:22, 21 May 2007 (BST)

Alternative flight mechanic: "Flying" means "Can only be attacked by other Flying Units", and all Flying Vehicles would say things like "At the start of your turn, if there isn't an Airstrip in the same Era as this Unit, it loses 1 Fuel." (with whatever other wordings; a Launchpad for futuristic fliers, nothing for flying Animals, and tweaked variations). --Kevan 17:15, 10 May 2007 (BST)

If there's no recharge station (like airstrips) for flying Animals, how is it possible to recharge Dragon's mana? Is Dragon flying specifically so that it can't be recharged? --Corrigan 9:46, December 18 (PST)
Fuel already goes down quite fast (one per Unit Action). Maybe something like 'cannot refuel without an Airstrip terrain'? - Zaratustra 20:25, 20 May 2007 (BST)
Aha, perfect. And futuristic airstrips would just recharge batteries, so would be useless for present-day aeroplanes. --Kevan 16:22, 21 May 2007 (BST)

So can Flying units attack each other? Chenhsi 22:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Ongoing effects

This came up in the Infinite Dvorak deck as well, and I don't know if it's just my preference, but I think we should be avoiding cards which create invisible permanent effects. Mechanics like "Target Animal in the same era is now a Soldier" and "If a Marine is attacked for the first time" require the players to remember a change in the gamestate, and preventing the entire gamestate from being read by looking at the table.

In all cases, I think they can be reworded so as not to require invisible tracking (or at least flipped to make the tracking very short term - "If this Unit came into play during your most recent turn, it has -2 Damage and -2 Stamina, and counts as a Soldier instead of an Animal." for Werewolf). What do other people think? --Kevan 11:53, 10 May 2007 (BST)

The Island is quite a specialty card, though. It's not going to see much play, in my opinion. Zaratustra 20:55, 10 May 2007 (BST)
Perhaps, but if we're agreed that invisible effects are a potentially bad and confusing thing, there's no reason for them to exist at all, even on rare cards. And actually, the problem I raised for James's Collected Speeches applies to the Island as well - if an Animal "is now a Soldier" and gets shuffled back into my deck, what happens to it? (It would be cleaner to have the Island adding Mutation Tokens to units, and defining an effect for them - in fact, if I was playing a game with an Island deck, I'd probably use tokens to keep track of things anyway. Admittedly it's completely implicit that tokens "fall off" of a card when it leaves play, under the current rules, but that's much more intuitive than state effects terminating.) --Kevan 16:47, 22 June 2007 (BST)
Sound oppinion... On my behalf (If marine is attacked for the first time...) I would say that some sort of markers or coins could be used to track the Stamina count of a Unit. --Joeyeti 14:14, 10 May 2007 (BST)
I think we've already established that we're using "wound counters" to keep track of damage, although it's a bit patchily worded, throughout the cards. If we've already got one type of token being use a lot on each card, we should probably avoid using too many more. (Marine could be changed to "If Marine is attacked while unwounded..." without losing too much of the mechanic, and Reaper-Jack could become "Damage: 1, Stamina: 3. Reaper-Jack enters play with two wounds. If Reaper-Jack kills another Unit, he may heal one wound.") --Kevan 14:49, 10 May 2007 (BST)
I don't see what the big deal about Island is. Wouldn't the effect cease to be ongoing once the card is destroyed? This would mean that no counters would be needed and one could understand the status of the game at first glance. If it is meant to be permanent after the Island is gone then that seems a little odd and should be errataed. As for Marine I would suggest something more simpler like "Until the start of your next turn attacks cannot damage Marine" to keep memorization to a minimum if the use of a counter is discouraged. Aetherknight 08:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


Speeding things up

To make the game faster-paced, and to give it more of a momentum effect, I think it would be a good idea to have these two Special Rules:

  • Players may play one Thing through each open Portal.
  • Players may take one Action in each Era they have Units in at the start of their turn, plus one Timeless Action per turn.

--Bucky 19:53, 28 September 2007 (BST)

I like the idea in theory, but you're still only drawing one card per turn. Plus, the couple of times I played, armies tended to build up quickly. -- Zaratustra 07:58, 29 September 2007 (BST)

In that case, we could keep the one-Thing-per-turn limit but allow the extra Actions. -Bucky 02:19, 30 September 2007 (BST)

External and Aquatic

What is meant by these two keywords? The rulse do not seem to mention either one.--ChippyYYZ 23:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

They have no meaning in the rules, but have their obvious meanings anyway. 'Aquatic' is referenced by a few cards and basically means 'able to be attacked by Kraken'. 'External' is not referenced by any cards.-Bucky 20:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I think that it might make more sense if Aquatic units could only be attacked by Units that are Aquatic, Aerial or have range damage. It's kind of illogical that a zombie could attack a ship in the ocean. -- Corrigan 9:52, December 18, 2010 (PST)

Timeline

Hm. Should there be a post-apocalyptic period? Should it be before or after space exploration? Or beside it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zaratustra (talk • contribs) 22:26, 1 May 2007.

We could just add a load of post-apocalypse cards to the tail end of the Information Age (perhaps jotting out a detailed timeline somewhere, to clarify that an apocalypse occurs in 2086); I'm not sure we'd necessarily gain very much by adding more and more and thinner and thinner Eras to the timeline.
Having said that, a post-apocalypse probably should be distinct from the Era that immediately precedes it, so that 21st century mobile phones and pet foods and chat shows can't be played straight into it. Feel free to give it a go and see how it pans out. --Kevan 00:07, 2 May 2007 (BST)

Last Days of Earth is pretty empty and even I can't think of stuff to put in. Shall it be returned to ashes? Zaratustra 07:45, 18 May 2007 (BST)

When looking at one Era, it's hard to know which cards fall under them if the cards are listed at an earlier Era. For example, the Refinery has the date 1888+, so it is listed under the Victorian Era. That means when I'm looking at the Apocalyptic Era I don't see it, which gets hard to keep track of. I think that each Era should have a section which lists the names of these unshown multi-Era cards even if the card itself is only actually displayed in one place (for ease of editing). This will make balancing and deck design much easier. If no one has any objections I will add this in the next few days. Azareon 22:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems like a good idea to have such a list around somewhere.-Bucky 23:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

It's kind of odd that there are no Eras between the Mesozoic Era and Antiquity. Might I suggest an intermediate one, say "Stone Age", "Paleolithic Era" or "Dawn of Man", themed around early tribal culture? -- Corrigan 15:42, December 18, 2010.

Starter / booster packs

Would it be interesting to make a 'starter' pack with, say, 20 cards per Era and 30 timeless cards, then put the rest on semi-themed 'boosters'? -- Zaratustra 08:41, 12 September 2007 (BST)

Speaking from (minor) experience, it's hard to keep track of this sort of thing, but it does make for a more interesting game. However, if you go that route, then you can excuse making broken cards by making them really rare, but then the one guy who has the card kills everyone and can protest when his card is changed. --Atticus 23:52, 19 May 2008 (BST)
To make things fair when there are two players in the same era, the player who goes first should not be able to take an Action on the first turn. Otherwise, whoever goes second loses that portal.-Bucky 00:24, 12 August 2008 (BST)

Art

Yeah, I know I'm mostly the only person that cares about this one, but even so: -- Zaratustra 02:15, 24 September 2007 (BST)

http://zarawesome.googlepages.com/chronocards2.png

Card feedback

Cards by James

I did a fair few cards, none of which seem to be on the front page?

--James 18:45, 19 May 2007 (BST)

They don't show up on the edit log either.Bucky
Maybe they got lost in a edit collision and you didn't notice? Zaratustra 20:52, 19 May 2007 (BST)
If you mean the ones you suggested in the talk thread back in February, they weren't all converted and copied across when the main CCG page was created; I didn't want to be too presumptuous about rewording cards (like Time Machine) to the finalised system, so only took a couple of examples. Feel free to tweak and copy them across. --Kevan 10:44, 20 May 2007 (BST)
I took the liberty of copying the more obvious cards. I like the ideas of Spell Actions that can be played on any Era a Wizard is in, but your examples are both strictly worse than Time Warp. Leonardo's Contraption awaits the inclusion of a Renaissance era. - Zaratustra 00:24, 21 May 2007 (BST)

Reaper-Jack - Are the counters removed instead of wounds being added? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JJ12121616 (talk • contribs).

Collected Speeches of Lucifer falls under the "ongoing effects" problem raised elsewhere on this talk page; in this case the card can actually lead to ambiguous events (if I make a Tyrannosaur Infernal and it gets shuffled back into my deck, does it stay Infernal? And if so, how do I distinguish it from other Tyrannosaurs in my deck?). "All other Units you control in this Era are counted as Infernal." might be okay, depending on what Infernality ends up doing. --Kevan 16:41, 22 June 2007 (BST)

Jurassic Labs: Should this be changed to only allow Animals to be played? Right now I could use it to play a Ninja, Flying Machine or Bulldozer, which doesn't make much sense. Great style though, and I imagine nice combos with the Island. Ice Trap: Are the units assigned to this unable to take actions? I think this should be the case because they are frozen. Azareon 21:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Jurassic Labs- I'm not sure because nobody has tried building a deck using the Labs. Jurrassic Labs are certainly the most powerful play-out-of-era cards, so some toning down may be needed. I'd suggest trying out the current version and seeing if it's broken.
Ice Trap- As written, no; you're free to use it to take a couple of dinosaurs on a strafing run through a couple of enemy eras.
-Bucky 23:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't referring to the game balance of these cards, but the in-game rationale for what they do. A Jurassic Park style Lab should not be able to create Ninjas or Panzer Tanks, because that doesn't make any sense (and yes, it might be hugely overpowered--I could make a deck in the last three Eras that uses any Units I want at all if I have a bunch of these Labs). I suggest restricting it to something like playing Units from before 499 or to Animals (although I realize this means it could allow Elementals and Zombies to be played, which doesn't make sense either). Also, it doesn't make sense for a frozen dinosaur to attack someone and still be frozen. If the dinosaur attacks, it should be "unassigned" from the Ice Trap. Or the name could be changed to something like Glacial Valley, which sounds like it could allow units to leave it and then re-enter. Obviously this doesn't have to change, but I think the style of this game is very cool, and having cards' game mechanics reflect the imaginary things they represent heightens the style tremendously. Azareon 04:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Loot: How does a Modifier work? Can you play it in addition to an Action? I only see this one card as a Modifier, although my suggestion for how The Butterfly Effect should work would be one as well. Maybe this should be explained under the rules. Azareon 22:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

You can play it whenever it says you can play it and and may not play it at any other time. I don't know what "Modifier" means, but the card text speaks for itself.-Bucky 23:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The Steam Airship Gunner is listed as 1890+. I understand why a Time Machine could be found natively after the end of this Era, but is there a rationale for why a steampunk airship would be found in the Apocalypse or Space Ages, etc.? Azareon 08:43, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Cards by Zaratustra

Red Giant Sun would make more sense as a Terrain with a Unit Action ability, wouldn't it? (And maybe an area-effect one, at that.) --Kevan 22:52, 1 May 2007 (BST)

Hm, true. Zaratustra 23:09, 1 May 2007 (BST)

Should the Eras overlap at their endpoints? I haven't looked too carefully, but it seems like a card from 1969 could be played onto either the Industrial Age or the Atomic age. MagiMaster 04:18, 2 May 2007 (BST)

We can jigger the era ends better once we have enough cards for each one, I guess. Zaratustra 20:56, 2 May 2007 (BST)

So how can Star Fighters and Stellar Explorers fight fairly against mediaeval peasants and dinosaurs, or even present-day units? I'm beginning to think that "flying" might be a useful keyword to have (so that some units just can't do any damage at all to flying units), but things actually whooshing around in space is maybe pushing that a bit too far, particularly when we have cards like Blitzkreig being able to damage spaceships. Maybe we should keep everything within the lower atmosphere, and explain thematically that all time portals open on the ground? --Kevan 18:33, 7 May 2007 (BST)

Hm, OK. Zaratustra 20:02, 7 May 2007 (BST)

Moonshot Cannon: This card is way too powerful. Is it supposed to be able to fire at Units in other Eras?-Bucky 00:06, 11 May 2007 (BST)

I don't know what the intention was (it does need Fuel), but I think we definitely need to sort out a big, clear assumption somewhere that cards can only affect other cards in the same era, and that Action cards have to be played into a single, specific era. --Kevan 00:49, 11 May 2007 (BST)
My mistake. There. Zaratustra 02:20, 11 May 2007 (BST)

Timeline Shift has been massively depowered, as it makes a very bad combo with Chronofold Hounds that can bone the game from the first turn. Zaratustra 03:34, 13 May 2007 (BST)

Cybertank - Maybe "This does not need a Soldier to take Unit Actions." should be called "Automated" or something. JJ12121616 02:14, 8 June 2007 (BST)

If more Vehicles show up with such an ability I'll keyword it. - Zaratustra 05:41, 8 June 2007 (BST)

Extinction Event - Does it have to say "in this Era"? JJ12121616 02:14, 8 June 2007 (BST)

Not anymore. - Zaratustra 05:41, 8 June 2007 (BST)

Wooden Horse - "Unit Action: Put a Soldier card from this Unit's original Era into play." from where? JJ12121616 02:14, 8 June 2007 (BST)

Your hand. Rephrased. - Zaratustra 05:41, 8 June 2007 (BST)

Unequal Trading - Do you get to pick the cards? Are they from the top or anywhere? If you draw a unit this way, how will you play it? If you discard a card that isn't yours, where does it go? When I put the card on my hand, is it on my left or my right? (okay, that one was for fun. But "in" might be better. OCD.) JJ12121616 02:14, 8 June 2007 (BST)

Yeah. Sure, why not. Alternate Universe. Rules don't specify, probably yours. You're very funny. - Zaratustra 05:41, 8 June 2007 (BST)
I apologizes if I offended you; Sarcasm is hard over the internet without audio. JJ12121616 20:39, 8 June 2007 (BST)
It's OK, you wouldn't know English is my second language. -- Zaratustra 03:00, 9 June 2007 (BST)

Ninja-Does this allow a free attack after another free attack? If not, you should rephrase it.-Bucky 01:45, 24 June 2007 (BST)

Sandglass Desert:This card seems overpowered to me. It combos too well with any Action that makes you draw cards (such as Timeless Luck or Eureka). It also combos extremely well with Painkillers. -Bucky 07:48, 15 October 2007 (BST)

Any better? -- Zaratustra 21:37, 15 October 2007 (BST)

Temple - What is the point of Temple if there are only 2 Holy units in the game?

To give aid to those two units? Maybe more holy units will be made later. -- Zaratustra 01:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

War Elephant - Can it kill itself or another War Elephant? Chenhsi 22:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

It certainly can. -- Zaratustra 01:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Difference Engine - IMO, this card's ability belongs in the Renaissance era.-Bucky 07:27, 25 April 2008 (BST)

Perhaps, though Victorian Era doesn't have much of a conducting mechanic. I'll move it if I think of a good flavor for it in the other era. -- Zaratustra 03:09, 29 April 2008 (BST)

Temptation, Defile - Needs nerfing badly. In the zombie deck, these cards represent a 'pwn anything' defense that other decks just plain can't get around. Any other Apocalypse-era deck doesn't stand a chance. I'd suggest completely reworking or removing Temptation and restricting Defile to non-Unit Holy Things. -Bucky 00:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't quite get how Crusader's Unit Action is useful, since, as a Unit Action, it replaces combat, so damage or offensive bonuses are useless, and it doesn't last long enough for any stamina or defensive bonuses to work either. It would be better if it just said "Soldier Units you control are Holy", as a constant effect. -- Corrigan 16:07, December 18, 2010 (PST)

Cards by BM

Your 'Genetical Altering' card is misspelled and apparently you do not want it to be corrected. Zaratustra 08:28, 5 May 2007 (BST)

I fixed it, but now I don't think it sounds right. --BM 15:26, 5 May 2007 (BST)
Card names in CCGs tend to be nouns or present-simple-tense verbs, rather than continuous-tense verbs - "Genetic Alteration" or "Alter Genes", rather than "Genetically Altering". And the possessive "its" doesn't have an apostrophe. --Kevan 15:42, 5 May 2007 (BST)
Why did "Genetic Alteration" get put in the timeless cards pile? It says 2000+ and all the other n+ cards got put in their starting era. --BM 14:42, 8 May 2007 (BST)
Sorry, it just got lost in all the yearless cards when I was rearranging the page. I've moved it. --Kevan 15:09, 8 May 2007 (BST)
For what it's worth, this card also falls under the "invisible state effect" problem, and would work more or less equally well as an Equipment card of some sort, that said "This Animal or Soldier gets +2 Damage." --Kevan 16:52, 22 June 2007 (BST)

Tank - Does this mean that a soldier must be "assigned" to a specific vehicle? Or when Tank is destroyed, pick a soldier in the same era as this one and deal 2 wounds to it? JJ12121616 02:14, 8 June 2007 (BST)

The Butterfly Effect - Can (or should) the first target be yours? JJ12121616 02:14, 8 June 2007 (BST)

If that is what this card intends, it should be reworded as something like "Destroy one of your Units. Then choose an opponent's Unit in a later Era to destroy." Actually, I think it would be much more interesting and fun if you had to kill an enemy Unit in combat first, i.e. "You may only play The Butterfly Effect immediately after you destroy a player's Unit in combat. Choose one of that player's Units in a futureward Era to destroy." Azareon 21:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Cards by JoeYeti

Is there a specific reason why Timeless Luck and The Great Unknown are picking random cards from the deck, rather than just drawing from the top? --Kevan 12:23, 7 May 2007 (BST)

Nope, just to make it somewhat interesting... ;) But if the majority disagrees and you feel it is tedious to dive through the whole deck... It can be changed. --Joeyeti 16:02, 7 May 2007 (BST)
Not tedious, but if this were being played in something like Links#Apprentice, there'd be no command for "remove a random card from the deck".
But CCG cards generally interact more effectively if they're kept as simple as possible - if there were other cards that let you put cards on top of your deck, or shuffle it, then Timeless Luck might be an interesting card to play in conjunction with them. As it is, avoiding the top cards and picking random ones just seems to make it less interesting. (And The Great Unknown is actually a slightly weaker version of the legendarily weak "Draw one card" action card, which just replaces the card you're playing with a card you could have drawn instead, and uses up your action for that turn.) --Kevan 18:13, 7 May 2007 (BST)
Ok, changing the Timeless Luck and erasing The Great Unknown.... --Joeyeti 08:00, 8 May 2007 (BST)

Your mechanic of "If heads, (this card) is hit" would be clearer as "If tails, the damage is prevented", assuming that's what you meant. --Kevan 18:13, 7 May 2007 (BST)

As you mention it, is clearer ;) Changed... --Joeyeti 08:00, 8 May 2007 (BST)

Deep Forest - How does a unit get "in"? JJ12121616 02:14, 8 June 2007 (BST)

Never mind, further reading proved myself an idiot. JJ12121616 18:26, 9 June 2007 (BST)

Cards by Bucky

"Unique" would certainly be a useful keyword, but you've got it as both "You can only have one of these in each Era." and "You can only have one of these in play at a time." - I think the former's probably more fun, for a time-travel game. --Kevan 17:44, 9 May 2007 (BST)

Given the nature of these cards (i.e. affects all later eras), having two in different eras would make them far too powerful. Two Biotech Labs could use the same prerequisite labs yet give your troops in the later era 9x the Stamina, which is too much. -Bucky 20:11, 9 May 2007 (BST)

Make it two keywords, then. I didn't even notice they had different rulings. Zaratustra 21:08, 9 May 2007 (BST)
You could rephrase the cards so that the modifier only applies once, although it'd take a lot of rephrasing. Perhaps some sort of "required" keyword would be useful (meaning "must have these other things in play in current or earlier eras, before you can play this"), so that you could just say something like "Biotechnology Lab. Unique. Requires Secret Research Lab, Chemistry Lab and Nanotechnology Lab. A Soldier that has any Biotechnology Labs in its current or earlier Eras has its stamina tripled." --Kevan 00:59, 10 May 2007 (BST)

Are the more advanced Lab cards too powerful? Or are the earlier ones not powerful enough? Or are they all too strong?-Bucky 21:35, 9 May 2007 (BST)

Time to make a deck and test! Zaratustra 22:42, 9 May 2007 (BST)
One problem I can see is that labs effecting later Eras have little use in the farther end of the timeline. Zaratustra 23:03, 9 May 2007 (BST)
That's one of the balancing factors. In order to take full advantage of them, you need to move them back through time. Not only is this ether dangerous and time consuming(i.e. shipping buildings through enemy territory) or reliant on luck (i.e. using Time Warp), but early in the timeline it is more vulnerable to a blundering Dinosaur. -Bucky 03:09, 10 May 2007 (BST)

Won't Time Fly die as soon as it's played? -- Zaratustra 07:44, 24 May 2007 (BST)

To quote the rules, "If a card ever sustains a number of wound counters that exceed its Stamina, it is destroyed." (emphasis added) The Time Fly will not die until it receives a wound.-Bucky 16:20, 24 May 2007 (BST)
Oh, tut, I think that was just me wording things carelessly - I don't think it makes any intuitive sense for a Stamina 3 unit to require four wounds before it dies. Any objections to the rule being reworded to the originally-intended "equal or exceed"? --Kevan 16:32, 24 May 2007 (BST)
Everyone will understand it that way anyway, so might as well. -- Zaratustra 19:03, 24 May 2007 (BST)
Now this throws the game balance off, since it greatly increases the one-hit kill opportunities. That one extra wound made a rather large difference, especially for weaker units, but everyone just lost at least a quarter of their stamina.-Bucky 20:56, 24 May 2007 (BST)
Anyone who was designing their cards under the same system as you can just bump the numbers up by one. Personally, all my cards were designed for the "equal or exceed" wording. --Kevan 22:24, 24 May 2007 (BST)

Does "Stamina: 1/4" (presumably "¼"?) add anything that couldn't be achieved through "Stamina: 1. Time Fly's stamina may not be increased."? Given that there's no reason why future cards couldn't include mechanics like "heal wound counters equal to the stamina of target unit", a single fractional value is liable to pollute and confuse the rest of the game. --Kevan 09:23, 25 May 2007 (BST)

Zombie - Zombie with mana? Just a personal issue I guess. JJ12121616 02:14, 8 June 2007 (BST)

I had an idea to make labs more modular. See what you think -- Zaratustra 02:23, 6 October 2007 (BST)

Materials Science Lab
Terrain - Unique
Stamina: 7

If you control three Labs in this Era or earlier, all your Terrains in this Era or later have Armor 2.
Chemistry Lab
Terrain - Unique Lab
Stamina: 7

If you control three Labs in this Era or earlier, all your Vehicles in this Era or later gain have twice the Fuel and Battery.
Nanotechnology Lab
Terrain - Unique Lab
Stamina: 6

If you control three Labs in this Era or earlier, all your Vehicles in this Era or later have Regeneration 1.
Engineering Lab
Terrain - Unique Lab
Stamina: 7

Vehicles in this Era or later gain +1 Stamina for each Lab you control in this Era or earlier.
Energy Physics Lab
Terrain - Unique Lab
Stamina: 6

Vehicles in this Era or later gain +1 Damage for each Lab you control in this Era or earlier.
Biotechnology Lab
Terrain - Unique Lab
Stamina: 6

Soldiers in this Era or later gain +1 Stamina for each Lab you control in this Era or earlier.


I'd prefer something that keeps the heirarchy of labs - maybe using something like this -Bucky 02:35, 6 October 2007 (BST)

Biotechnology Lab
Terrain - Unique Lab
Stamina: 6
This is a level 3 Lab.

If you control a level 2 Lab in this Era or earlier, Soldiers in this Era or later have their Stamina doubled.


Why do past labs affect modern labs?

Cards by Cait

You shouldn't be allowed to play Timeline Shatter into an opponent's Era, which the current wording and rules seem to allow.-Bucky 03:54, 13 May 2007 (BST)

Cards by Kevan

Count Schreck - Do the normal placement rules apply, do you put it in the same era as the count, or can you put it anywhere? JJ12121616 02:14, 8 June 2007 (BST)

Maybe we need to tighten up the base rules, but the rule about Things only being able to "see" the Era they're in should also cover the fact that a "put into play" effect of a Thing would be restricted to that era. I'll think about a good wording for it. --Kevan 10:09, 8 June 2007 (BST)

Scavenger Team - Does the target being moved to have to be able to use such a counter? If NAME gets a mana counter, does NAME now need to remove mana counters to activate, and can it then not move without mana? JJ12121616 02:14, 8 June 2007 (BST)

The "Resources" rule says that fuel is only drained if a Unit has a fuel value "defined". This is a bit ambiguous, but even if you read having a token as having a value defined, it'll become undefined as soon as the token is spent. --Kevan 10:09, 8 June 2007 (BST)
So will the token stay until moved or spent upon the next usage of that unit? In my opinion, it should just stay. JJ12121616 20:39, 8 June 2007 (BST)

Solar Panel: This card is massively more powerful than any of the other Battery replenishing buildings to the point where it could make the rest a waste of deck space. It may have low Stamina, but the fact that it can fully replenish one Unit's Battery as a free action every turn makes it way too powerful in my opinion. One idea is to make the Solar Panel read: "At the start of your turn, you may discard X cards. If you do so, replenish X Battery to one Unit." This would reflect the high cost of Solar Paneling in real life, keep the cards balanced, and add interesting variety to the Battery replenishing mechanics. Azareon 09:39, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Cards by jtwe

Gray Goo: If the Gray Goo card itself is removed, what happens? Do the goo tokens still in play continue to reproduce? Or just vanish? Or remain there, inert, until the card gets played again? Or some other possibility I'm not thinking of? --Tweed Cap 15:23, 25 April 2008 (BST)

Remain there inert, because it doesn't say otherwise. I have to imagine that actually PLAYING with this card would be supremely irritating. I have no idea why I keep thinking up cards like that. Jtwe 15:55, 25 April 2008 (BST)

Cards by Corrigan

I received a message from Bucky saying that most of the batch of cards I recently added were of "poor quality", by which, I assume, he meant they were overpowered. I've since toned down most of them (though it pained me to add mana to Giant) and deleted some altogether. I hope they are now more acceptable, but not too severely nerfed. Also, how much freedom can be given for Unique cards? I didn't change Michael, and I worry that he's overpowered even as a Unique card. -- Corrigan 15:22, December 18 (PST)

You added a bunch of off-theme cards (like the mythological Antiquity Animals), ignored a few conventions (Aerial units not named 'Dragon' are fragile, as are Renaissance soldiers), and, yes, had some overpowered (e.g. Historic Charge - compare to the 'ordinary' Charge!), mechanically broken (Legend - making a card Unique while it's in play and you have another one has an undefined result) and useless (specific example no longer present) cards. Overall, it felt like you hadn't actually played the game before making the cards.


As for Unique cards, they typically get a small (+1.5 stat) bonus for being unique. In the specific case of Michael, that does *not* excuse an External Soldier being so much better than the Era-specific Unique soldier (Hero) in terms of base states. Additionally, Aerial units (and Soldiers!) just don't have Dino-sized toughness without help, even with a minor (in this case completely avoidable) drawback.-Bucky 01:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Addendum: Jetpack Infantry is just a tad below 'fair' for an Aerial Soldier with no fuel. Michael needs to be reconcepted or gets nerfed to 1/1. I think the best solution is 0/2 with an awesome ability.-Bucky 01:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't think that the mythological creatures would be off-theme (I saw that there were fantasy creatures in the Middle Ages and the Victorian Era, so I didn't think there would be these kinds of restrictions). I've deleted all of the mythological creatures, and I've added a Senate card which is more in keeping with the Antiquity theme.

I also appreciate you toning down some of my cards, but now that Michael is powered down, he's hardly extraordinary. An Archer can take him down in one shot; I'm considering giving him Armor 1 and replacing his Profane Bane ability to something a bit less situational, but not overwhelming. -- Corrigan 23:36, December 18, 2010 (PST)

With armor 1, Michael is indeed overwhelming. Even without armor 1, Michael still breaks too many design rules (e.g. no Mesozoic soldiers, no Aerial vehicle drivers, Aerials have lower stats, Everywhen cards are slightly worse than era-specific ones)-Bucky 20:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


Reenact - This gives Renaissance decks better access to Antiquity's best soldiers than Antiquity decks, thanks to the search ability. It would probably also require nerfs to several Antiquity-era Soldiers like Hero and General, but I can't tell for sure without playing a few games. Please tone it down. (suggestion: play the soldier from hand and/or set its stamina to 1.)-Bucky 02:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


Spike Trap - I feel like this should give one of your soldiers the animal's Game effect and maybe be soldier-powered. Your call.--ChippyYYZ 22:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Flux Strain is game-breaking in the first two turns and has no 'fair' uses. I've moved it to the talk page in case you want to rework it. -Bucky 05:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Flux Strain
Terrain - Timeless
Stamina: 3
Whenever there are no Units in an Era, turn that Era Portal face-down.
Maintaining these portals is an energy-consuming task. There's no reason to keep portals open if they lead to wastelands.
Card by Corrigan



Stone Age

I see you've created a new era. While this isn't necessarily bad, it does mean you need to come up with at least one reasonable offense card that's distinct from the other eras' offense.-Bucky 02:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Now that you've built it out a bit more... it still doesn't seem to have any real offensive capabilities.-Bucky 23:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Card limit

we need a limit on card copies in the deck. I was destroyed by a deck with 20 Timeline Shifts and 20 Chronofold Hounds. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zaratustra (talk • contribs) 02:27, 13 May 2007.

I suppose this is fixed now that the cards have been changed. I'm not sure if the fact that a deck with massively-multiple cards is a sign of a broken deck-construction rule, or a broken card design - it does seem to come up for every CCG we try to make, though, so maybe it should just be a fixed default rule for all CCG sets, even if it does mean we're copying Magic the Gathering. (Do many other CCGs have copies-per-deck limit?) --Kevan 12:47, 14 May 2007 (BST)
From a cursory glance, Yugioh and Naruto have a 3-card limit. Mostly, it's a way to prevent a single overpowered card creating an entire degenerate deck. I suppose we could try a few games without a card limit? Zaratustra 20:20, 14 May 2007 (BST)
Massively-multiple card decks tend to be brittle, especially if there are global rules cards. Or, they are the result of carefully balanced card combos that are easily upset, just like other powerful decks. If you look closely at my obsolete Alchemy deck, it worked not only because of the critical mass of Tea and Gargle Blaster but also on account of several other combos folded neatly into the victory conditions. If certain cards are too powerful in large numbers, we can restrict them on a case-by-case basis (like the Lab cards) or reword them to avoid the complication (e.g. "You may only play one Action Splitter per turn"). On the other hand, if we restrict all decks this way, we cut out other valid, nonbroken strategies (like a zombie horde deck). I think we should recommend it for new CCGs until the kinks get worked out, but not mandate it.
However, there is another type of deck which we should ban, one with exactly six Actions and fewer than 10 or so Things. This type of deck is inherently broken because once all your things are played you know exactly what you're drawing next turn.-Bucky 06:43, 16 May 2007 (BST)
You'll notice there's already a minimum of 40 cards in the deck. Zaratustra 08:07, 16 May 2007 (BST)

Maybe certain cards (ones like Zombie or Cavalry, whose texts make specific reference to having multiples in your deck) could be exempt from number-of-copies rules, or more copies could be allowed than normal to keep horde decks viable. Furthermore, certain cards could be restricted so that fewer copies than normal would be allowed. It sounds complicated, but it would allow more creativity through access to powerful cards without being completely busted. -- Corrigan

Playtesting

I played a round against a friend today. He played the Spartan Labs one (mostly using Antique cards as he wasn't very sure how the game worked) and I played a Werewolves with Guns Victorian/World War game.

Some thoughts:

  • Vehicles don't warp with their drivers. Generals don't follow their armies, though that's probably for the best else things get mighty fast.
  • Reinforced Bunker is tough.
  • The best strategy against a massive army seems to wait for the enemy to Maelstrom into your Era and then warp off to kill their portal.

Zaratustra 04:03, 17 May 2007 (BST)

Card combos

How many effective combos are there in this set? A few of them are devastating weapons but require quite unlikely setups, but I only know of a few small combos work well.

  • Double/Triple Swarm Attack: Painkillers + General + General(s) + troops: One General with boosted Stamina makes one or more lesser generals to act, letting an army move and attack on the same turn.
  • Research Lab series + Wrinkle: The Labs are there specifically for combos, but the Wrinkle allows the Labs to affect the entire timeline.
  • Hardened Bunker + Secret Research Lab + Materials Science Lab: There isn't much you can do to a Terrain with Armor 4, and the Labs also have Armor 2. This combo is best used to cover an invasion: send a Trenched Bunker in first, then move your troops in one by one under the protection of the Bunker. When you're ready to attack, warp out the bunker.

-Bucky 18:58, 17 September 2007 (BST)

Well, that last combo there is entirely your own creation. As for the other ones, I suggest trying to make a deck and see how it works in game. -- Zaratustra 22:05, 17 September 2007 (BST)

Cards by HellFalen

I've moved your cards to the talk page because they don't work in the current card set. Three of them have massive power-level concerns, amounting to an instant win if you play one, and the other of them doesn't work:

Portal Failure
Action
When you draw this card, destroy an era portal of your oponents.
Card by HellFalen
Buterfly effect
Action
When you draw this card, destroy all the things ao an oponents and give to him 3 things from the deck
Card by HellFalen
Calculation Error
Action
Change an era potal of your oponent and destroy alls his things
Card by HellFalen
Born in 1972 and die in 1235
Action
You can draw a card from the futurefrom the deck
Card by HellFalen


Portal failure and Calculation Error permanently remove your opponent's access to at least 1/3 of their cards. Butterfly Effect implies that you get to chose the 3 things (and the deck they come from); you can use it to render them completely helpless in an era. It takes a bit more work to kill them off than the first two, but it still wins the game assuming your opponent doesn't also play one of your 3 gamebreakers. Born in 1972 may be usable, but it isn't clear what's going on due to poor wording.-Bucky 01:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that we could re-word Born in 1972 to say "Search your deck for a card and play it onto an Era before its home Era." If I had to guess, I would say that that's its intended effect. -- Corrigan 15:53, December 18, 2010 (PST)

Cards by Ariev

The Fighter Plane (Industrial) does exactly the same thing as the Fighter Bomber and Fighter Jet appearing in later Eras, but it is more powerful. In my opinion, this should be balanced by weakening it. Planes at this time were pretty frail and had limited fuel in reality, so the Fighter Jet should be an improvement. Azareon 09:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Symbols (Recommendation by Doc Immortal)

You may want to use symbols for things that are frequently referenced on cards to reduce wordiness. For example, if some cards have defense power, a symbol can be used with a number over the symbol that tells you how much defense that card produces.

I dummied up some symbols for cards that have the following: 1 defense (shows a shield), 1 politics (shows the planet i.e. world domination), 1 religious power (shows generic religious symbol), 1 damage (shows something being destroyed), 1 endurance (shows a flexed arm). Obviously, something with 2 defense will have a 2 instead of a 1 and so on. They icons are not pretty but once someone knows what a symbol means, they can quickly identify a card's abilities at a glance. These symbols should be used for basic abilities. Advance stuff should remain in text form.

ChronogeddonSymbols.gif

Doc Immortal 08:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Holy/Profane/Unholy

Just a suggestion -- to me, "profane" means "secular". I'd suggest replacing the word with "unholy", which seems to be more what you want.

-- Wayland 09:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Additional Rules - Physical Challenge

Hi. I just thought I'd mention that I've just developed the Additional Rules - Physical Challenge, which is a set of additional optional rules and definitions which I hope will be well suited to a wide range (but certainly not all) Dvorak games. It seems to me that Chronogeddon could, with minimal effort, be modified to align with these (since I took lots of ideas from Chronogeddon). Mostly it's a matter of rewording some of the existing material. If you're happy for this to happen, but don't want to put in the time, please let me know.

-- Wayland 04:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

So what's the goal?

How do you win this game? I don't seem to see…

And now I've prompted its addition to the page. Thanks! Lenoxus 03:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://www.dvorakgame.co.uk//index.php?title=Talk:Chronogeddon_CCG_card_set&oldid=19835"