Difference between revisions of "Talk:Chronogeddon CCG card set"
Line 89: | Line 89: | ||
:::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) | :::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) | ||
::::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) | |||
===Cards by JoeYeti=== | ===Cards by JoeYeti=== |
Revision as of 14:09, 8 May 2007
This deck is currently under construction. We're currently working out the basic game mechanics, before we start designing actual cards. Feel free to join in the conversation below.
- Old talk on this subject has been archived.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)
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: Dinosaurs that can regenerate damage and destroy terrain. Suffer a bit from being at the very start of the timeline and have to walk a lot to get anywhere
- Ancient Ages: Weenie building, small units that gain strength in numbers
- Medieval Ages: Fortification terrains and terrain-defeating weapons, possibly a few wizards
- Modern Age: Plenty of resources, versatile, dependent on terrain support
- Apocalyptic: Mutants, units that can scavenge equipment; Have an extra touch for beating Vehicles, a bit dependent on Fuel
- Space Age: Big pieces, dependent of 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)
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)
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)
Card feedback
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)
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)
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)