Yesternight what has always been apparent struck me: There are really not so many ways to keep track of how many HP:s a creature has in a CCG. After having an uneasy feeling for several months now about the subject, but never really wanting to accept it, I have somehow managed to distance myself from confronting the topic. Not any more.
I’ve come to a conclusion for the rule set I’m currently working on, and I’m fairly confident it’s a global design issue that is in direct relation to how the attack system works/is resolved in a CCG. But before we look at the resolution, let’s have a quick recap of what we’re looking at here:
- In most combat orientated CCG:s creature have a number that equals thier HP/Life.
- If they do, that number is usually greater than 0.
- In most good CCG:s, that number is easy to keep track of and is between 0 to 10, in contrast to 3459.
- This is where we now continue: How should one keep track of a creature’s HP in a CCG where that variable changes often on each individual creature?
Tokens
The most straight forward thing to do is to keep track of a creatures HP by placing tokens on it. Either to add a token each time it’s damaged, or, to remove a token that happens. The most logical thing to do for most games, from a designers perspective, would be to add tokens on the card.
This is not as straight forward as one might think. Consider what the implications are and what we’re doing: When we keep track of the HP and remove a HP we do indeed take away one HP for every token we remove from the card.
When we do it the other way around – add a token – it becomes clear that we’re not actually adding a HP: Why would we add a HP when a creature loses combat? In most cases we want to deduct one, we want to remove life to show us that we lost comabat, not reward the player by giving him/her more HP for playing crappy. Thus, it’s apparent something else is happening implicitly, something that most players already know: We’re adding a wound/damage. This however, has direct effects on everything from wording to mechanics in a game.
My personal dissatisfaction with a HP system that relies on using tokens is that it requires constant management, especially in a game that focuses on combat. Add to that the span of the HP: if we have creatures that have everything from 1 to 10 HP, or even 1 to 5 HP, it could mean plenty of token handling.
Pen & paper
Scribbling a cards name and changing it’s stats while playing, and doing it for every card in play under your control, is out right a stupid solution. While viable in an RPG that is not as heavy on variables changing as often as a normal CCG is, it simply doesn’t cut it in a CCG.
Meters
Using some kind of custom solutions, usually by creating a type of meter/counter system, is an interesting touch. For a CCG this would, I think, always mean that there should be some kind of “termometer/HP-meter” printed somewhere on the card and something attached to the card or placed on the scale that indicates how much HP the creature has. Compare this with what HeroClix do in the world of semi-minis: They have added a dial on the base of each mini, that can be easily used to keep count of a units life as well as other stats depending on life.
Here’s a sloppy mock-up I did to illustrate the principle and how it might have looked like in WTactics:

Drawback that come to mind with my way of doing it in the above is wear-and-tear: Remedied maybe by sleeves & sturdy photlab paper & the fact that all our cards are free. Not sure if this is a serious issues, especially with plastic paper clips being less harsh to the cards than metal ones. In any case, it really makes sleeves and/or sturdy photo paper a requirement, raising the bar, unless of course, one would use a token instead of a paper clip.
Other more common meters instead of built-into ones are dies: d6, d12, d20 etc can all be used as cheap and effective meters, available in all local game stores.
In any game that would have more than 2-3 HP to keep track of, I would definitely prefer to go with a meters solution instead of a free-form token-placement solution. It seems very much more appropriate.
Using meters in WTactics is, at least from my own viewpoint, to tempt the general design criteria for the project: We either add more adminstration to the player, or, we add more administration and also more parts and preparations required to play the game (getting hold of proper dies, having sufficient amount of them, always carrying them around along with your deck etc).
I’m not suggesting it is a clear breakage with the general design document and the criteria we have that state that WTactcis, no matter what rule set it uses, should be easy to setup, take with you, demand minimum preparations and have no overhead administration while playing it. I’d place the need of meters in the twilightzone.
Rotating cards
An apparent and pretty good way to keep track of a creatures health is to rotate the card. This means that each creature could have 4 HP at most, as indicated on it’s own variable on the card.

Tha drawback of this system is that all players have to be very consistent in how they lay out the cards on the table, but that’s really not a big problem and likely self-fixable once they realize the importance of it.
The real issue is that this HP tracking system suggests that we can’t rotate cards to indicate other status changes to the card. I.e. how do we mark that a creature has already attacked this turn? Or used it’s other abilities?
We could of course create a game where no such abilities or attacks demand that the card is marked thus resolving this problem.
Most CCG:s would however not be satisfied with that solution, and I for one wouldn’t be with WTactics.
Or, we can… bring tokens back into the picture: This time around we only need two different types of tokens probably – one type for marking that abilities have been used, and another for marking that an attack has been done. Again, this could make sense in some games, but it still seems bulky when all comes around.
HP tracking goodbye
To me, what meets the design criterias for this project to an apparently greater degree is to simply get rid of HP tracking altogether. This does not mean that creatures have no HP. They could still have. It could simply be either 0 or 1. You’re either dead or alive. You are never wounded after battle has been resolved.
Now, what does this bring or take away from the game? I think plenty. It has major and direct effects of how would design the battle system, among other things.
My feeling this far is that systems that allow the attacking player to point out the targets tend to go with a system where HP:s are usually greater than 1. Vice versa also applies, combat systems where you’re not allowed to select your target (i.e. Magic the Gathering’s) can totally remove HP tracking and use a system where all creatures have 1 HP since the defending player has the privilege of select if/which creature will engage the enemy.
As WTactics is designed for the table top primarily and we can’t rely on automation in real life I think that ditching HP tracking is probably what I’ll go with on the rules I’m working on.

English
Español
Italiano
Svenska
#1 by Torben on July 4, 2010 - 19:35
Quote
I need to argue with your point.
If you remove hp tracking, just give one 1 hp per unit then you take away to many factors.
-healing abilities like of the elvish shaman would be useless as units die without chance to heal and many things would be imbalanced.
Realism
-An ent would be as though as a goblin. This would further decrease tactical possibilities as you could not use a strong unit for cover because it can be killed to easily.
I am an advocate of a mixed system of paper and token. My idea is that you take a sheet of paper or another thing and make lines on it from 1-10 for example. Whenever a unit is healed/hit or something similar then you move the token which can be a piece of paper or something else.
A problem could be to keep track which unit has which marker but this problem is able to be solved.
Torben
Oh and when are the new rules ready to be tested?
#2 by snowdrop on July 5, 2010 - 15:03
Quote
Thanks for the feedback.
I think I understand your concern, and I believe it’s a matter of perspective on what healing actually does and what happens on the “battle field”.
Healing can still be in the game even if creatures have 1 HP. How so? Wouldn’t they die after losing the 1 HP? Well, yes and no:
What happens when I get into combat and get a sword in my body, or an arrow? Sufficient to say, I become wounded. I either make it, or I die, in the end one of the two is always true.
Now, when do I die? In real life I would in some cases die “immediately”. In others I would die after 3 seconds, 30 minutes or 3 days after I was wounded, all depending on the weapon, type of damage, medical care I get etc.
This means that from a “realistic” point of view nobody dies directly. It always takes time to die. (If nothing else, then at least the time it takes for the sword to sink into the flesh and so on).
There is nothing that suggest that we can’t use healing in a 1 HP game. I get hit, I am wounded, but I don’t have 0 HP (death) until the combat is resolved. The combat is only resolved when all players are satisfied and have used all their abilities and cards that they want to use during that combat. After the combat is resolved a creature is either living or it is dead. While combat is being resolved a unit is still becoming affected by various other sources. One such source could very well be a Druid that “heals”.
This does of course assume that we can only heal while in a combat scenario. I think you have a more classical understanding of healing as something that can be done after combat as well. It’s true that healing won’t be able to be done after combat if a creature is dead (then we don’t heal it – we would zombify it or resurrect it. Maybe a necromancer can do that, but an elvish druid sure would not even want to do it ; )
The again, healing while the combat is resolving is not the same as to say that we’re healing while the creatures are fighting. Apparently, for a druid to want to heal somebody, he has already fought a little and became wounded. Does it make sense he has to be healed? I think it does, it’s kind of first aid-kit, maybe drinking a potion fast or being the target of a nice spell, then re-group and go back to battle.
I think we shouldn’t focus much on the word “healing”. Instead, look at what the function does. Classical healing restores HP. If we don’t use HP in WT then healing, as it is usually understood, has no obvious function. We don’t restore HP, since creatures have no HP.
I think I made a mistake in the post writing that they have HP at all. It would be better if I wrote that they lack HP, as it would be less confusing to all of us.
They are either dead, or alive. They become dead then the attackers power is equal to or higher than the defenders shield, and if nothing changes that while the battle is still being resolved. HP only matters if we can have “degrees of health”. In my suggestion, we have no “degrees of health”. We’re either well and alive physically, or we are not and we’re dead.
My motivation for removing degrees of health is that it adds nothing but administration in a game where the attacker doesn’t pick his targets him/herself (while degrees of health – HP – seems to often be required in other attack systems where the attacker chooses his own targets)
Now, you argue that this removes things like Healing. Yes, it does, in the sense that for example Battle for Wesnoth uses healing, since in Battle for Wesnoth the creatures have degrees of health.
But, this doesn’t make it impossible for us to use the words “healing” in our game or impossible for the Druid to heal somebody. The only thing we need to make sure in the system I suggested is that all such things must be done while the combat is resolving. If one understands “combat resolution” as stuff that happens a) while they are fighting and/or b) directly after they have fought, it is easy to grasp.
Another thing that could be relevant to bring up here is that “healing” in my suggested way of handling it is not the same as “restore HP”. Instead, it would translate to “remove damage form the attacker”. And there is, as we see now, a huge difference between the two ways of understanding it.
Consider the differences between these scenarios:
a) A creature dies. It is placed in the greaveyard/discard pile. Now another creature revives it.
b) Creature 1 attacks creature 2. Creature 3 uses an ability that prevents the damage on creature 2 from ever happening in the first place. A druid can’t heal creature 2, since the effect of the attack (the damage dealt) never happened.
c) A Druid “heals” a creature, by reducing the effect of it’s attackers strength. If a goblin was attacked by a Wose with the power of 10, dealing 10 damage to the goblin, the druid now “heals” the goblin and as a result 5 of the 10 damage is now lifted away, leaving only 5 damage left on the goblin. Does the goblin die or not? We compare the 5 in damage he has obtained from the Wose and compare it with his shield.
I know healing in the classical sense could be somewhat confusing the way I imagine it, and that there are better words for what actually happens in game logic (a unit gets it’s damage reduced… ). As mentioned earlier, we might have to use another word for that thing if it is very confusing or misleading to the players. There certainly is a risk it could be.
Whatever we call “healing”, we could still create a Druid that fills the “caring function” and that help other creatures to survive even though they were heavily wounded in combat.
Realism is not one of the goals with this game. We’re not building a simulation. It’s also debatable what is “real” in a fantasy game, wouldn’t you say?
What I think you mean is perhaps “the games ability to live up to how things are done in BfW”. And you are correct here that in BfW a Wose has x HP and a Goblin y HP, where x > y.
But, as I wrote earlier, mentioning HP at all in our game is actually a mistake made by me, in this post. One which I apologize for not seeing clearly when I wrote it, but where I have now, much thanks to your comment, been forced to define it all more clearly.
Since HP does not exist in WT (at least the rules I will suggest) a Woses and Goblins HP can’t be compared.
Then your question might be: “Does a Wose die as easily as a Goblin?” Because, to be honest, I think that is what you’re going for with your example. The answer would be no: I would not let the Wose be as easy to kill as a goblin. Actually, I’d give the Wose high “toughness” and also the ability to somehow self-heal, just as it does in BfW.
With that said, our mission is not to reproduce or translate BfW the computer game into paper cards, as explained in the FAQ, a CCG must be created much much differently from how thing work in a computer game. What we share is, to an extent, resources – 120 creatures, and, the games are in the same universe (but different timeline). I would however personally prefer to keep many of the creatures core characteristics from BfW in WT, if it is possible to do so in a smooth and meaningful way for WT. And only in that case. No others.
Else it would mean that we compromised with our gameplay in order to satisfy coherency with a computer game in a totally different genre. As an example, I would never let WT use a board with hexes etc just because it because it makes WT resemble BfW more. Why would one do that, unless of course, the aim is to translate the computer game into paper form (which we don’t – this is a CCG, BfW is a 4x game).
A “strong unit” in WT will never be “easily killed” in combat. If it is easily killed then it is not by the sword, but by something else
A physically strong unit would typically have both high attack and high toughness. On a sidenote, what is a strong or weak unit in a CCG is very contextual: Sometimes the “strongest” unit around is that weak weak wizard that can cast different spells on clueless muscular orcs
I have updated the article and added a picture that shows a smooth way of implementing what you suggest.
As seen in the text I also have considered that kind of solutions. Main reason I’m not trying them out right now is my thought that a game can be built perfectly fine without a HP system, and that if it’s possible and if that doesn’t really affect much or take away strategic depth, then it should be done so. (Notice: I believe we’re on the same page here Torben: If we were to use a HP system where HP:s ranged from 1 to 10 etc then using a meter is the way to go. We’ll see how playtesting fares and if a HP system is really needed or not. As all things related to development, I never make up my mind before there are clear evidence for/against something, and playtesting is king.)
I’ll try to add my take on the rules in the wiki in the 2-3 days to come. I’ve had much to do with the general design document in the Wiki, but I’m almost done with it now. I suggest you read it, am confident it will give you some info you’re interested in.
#3 by Hollyhock on July 6, 2010 - 10:55
Quote
Go for tokens. They feel natural in a CCG enviroment. If you don’t like them to represent wounds instead of life, think of this: tokens represent life, but they are only placed on already wounded creatures. If a creature has no tokens, it’s considered to be at its full HP capacity. That way the tokens represent a positive thing without needing tons of them.
Meters, 4-sided Rotations and paper&pencil are fiddly and unfun.
Don’t make everyone have 1HP. HP are very useful because they control luck. In a “everyone with 1HP” scenario, each attack follows a “heaven or hell” rule, in which a tough creature can stand any number of unlucky attacks. With HP, even if we get unlucky, if we focus on attacking we will be draining the creature’s HP bit by bit, and eventually it will bit the dust.
Also, only with HP the “healing” becomes healing. The Magic:TG-like concept you describe as “healing” (prevention of damage) feels like “shielding” a creature. Thanks to HP, you can thematically differentiate a “shielding spell” from a “healing spell”.
Just my 2 cents.
#4 by snowdrop on July 6, 2010 - 14:29
Quote
Interesting take Hollyhock
Though I must admit I got a bit confused about what tokens could/should represent:
If they are only placed on a creature if it’s wounded, wouldn’t that suggest that the token is indeed representing a wound, and not life?
(We can the, by looking at the amount of wound tokens understand how much life a creature has. But we don’t count life. We count tokens. Thus we count damage, and then we do a comparison with the creatures HP value on the card.)
argument for tokens being wounds
Personally I have no issues with letting tokens represent wounds. There is even a pretty strong design argument for it:
If a cerature has 10 HP and we are supposed to keep track of that with tokens, should they be life tokens or wound tokens? I’d opt for wound tokens.
Reason is simple: If they were life tokens, we’d to put 10 on the creature directly when it comes into play. Problems with that is that it a) obscures text/card image b) it means that we will have to move 10 tokens of the creature before it dies as well as c) place 10 tokens on it. All in all, we have done a repositioning of 20 tokens, for that single creature.
If tokens represent wounds instead, text is not obscured from the start, and I’d argue that the text should be as visible as possible when a new card comes into play, thus filling the card with tokens directly is a bad idea. Also, by putting wound tokens on a creature, we’d usually settle with a maximum of 9 tokens on the creature instead of 10: The last wound doesn’t have to be marked – it is mental – the players understand that the creature will die. Instead of placing the 10:th wound token they simply discard the 9 tokens and the card, since it dies. That translates to a maximum handling of 18 tokens altogether.
Repeat this in plenty scenarios with many creatures and it starts making a difference.
Hence, if I myself would ever go with tokens to keep track of a creatures health status, I would choose wound tokens, for those reasons alone. Maybe there are other good ones as well, or some drawback here, but I’m not seeing it right now. Don’t know what you guys think?
HP & Luck-relation
I think you’re right that luck matters less if a creature has 9 HP than if it would have 1 HP, since the creature gets “second chances”.
In my current rules concept I have tried to exclude lack altogether from how combat is resolved and use same deterministic model as in MtG.
In very early testing we used an easy and somewhat randomly influenced attack system: Each creature’s attack was made up of 2 values, i.e. 2/5. The player would roll a d6. If (s)he got a 2 or below the creature would deal 5 damage. In other words, we even incorporated “accuracy”, or rather, probability of an attack ever coming through at all or not.
That system was a failure for several reasons. Most noteworthy being that it prolongs the game via bad rolls, and also makes the game too much about luck compared with what I was going for with my personal visions of what a CCG should be (higher on strategical choices, less of randomness).
I’m aware a random attack system can be made that works much better than the above, but drawbacks are still there, even if they are so to a lesser degree. The most important question is perhaps why we need random influence in the combat process? What does that fix or add to a game, compared to how combat is done in MtG? (There is no randomness in it, yet you don’t know if your opponent will block, and if (s)he blocks, with what.) I think that questions answer is central to how one deals with designing the combat.
Traditional Healing
I totally agree that what you and Torben speak of is the “true” definition of healing, as understood most commonly in the gaming world, and that it would be confusing to call it healing in WT if we’d use a non-HP system. But does us staying true to theme warrant that we use a specific attack system?
I’d say no. Theme, at least to me, is always secondary when doing game design. You give me any set of rules and mechanics, and I can put together any theme you want in the end
It’s just a matter of how we explain things to the player, what words we use, what we depict with the card art and what stories we tell.
I am a huge fan of a good theme. I love games that have good themes as theme really brings plenty to the table. But I can also recognize bad game design, no matter how good theme the game uses. In the end, the handling of the game logic is what makes the game’s core tick. The theme doesn’t. The theme is fluff that – if a game has a good rules & mechanics – will further enchant that game and add to the feeling the player gets when playing it.
What I’m trying to get at here is that theme should never ever lead to a rule being added or removed. On the contrary: Theme should be the clothing we dress the rules in after they have been created. Not the rules parent. There are many reasons for this. One of the most recognized among game designers is that letting theme be a guiding star for rules usually translates to rules getting more complicated than they have to, and to an attempt to make a game more “realistic”. Both of these things will inevitably lead to a bad game (unless of course theme or realism/simulation is the goal of the game).
Shielding & Healing
1. (event) Target creature can’t be the target of an attack until the end of this turn.
2. (event) Target attacker does half the damage until end of turn.
3. (event) Prevent all damage on target creature.
4. (Ability of a shaman) Heal: Remove 2 damage of target creature in combat.
The above shows some examples of how shielding and healing could work.
In some cases we Prevent damage: None of that damage is ever dealt.
In other cases we reduce the strength of the attacker – (s)he does deal damage, but not as much as (s)he wants to deal.
We also have an exception from combat: A creature that can not even be called into combat. Lastly we have the “Heal”. It would work like this:
I attack. I have an an attack value of 4. You block. Your Defense is 2. Since my ATK is higher (or equal) than your DEF I succeed to deal damage to you.
How much damage? Let’s see: 2-4 = -2 = 2 damage.
Now, if this damage is removed (notice: it’s not the attacks strength that is reduced. The attack strength is always 4 in this case), would it be complicated or wrong to say that the creature is “healed”?
As I noted elsewhere in the comments, I am not sure about the answer to that question. I tend to agree with you and Torben on that Healing is usually associated with HP. If this is indeed an issue in the rule I’m working on then I should not speak of “healing” – instead I should use other terminology.
Sidenote: Kissing men
It would be cool if you had some name or rules suggestions for it.
The male version of Bound by Love-art has been delivered and they’re ready. It will be presented on the site this or next month. Tell me if you want a copy via mail.
#5 by Witty on July 7, 2010 - 13:54
Quote
Hi everyone
So far, I think the proposed game mechanics were:
HP-tracking for all units, with the HPs range being 1-5 up to 1-10. This is regarded as requiring a lot of administration and extra game-pieces, and it might be fiddly.
No HP-tracking. Arguments against it were healing abilities being rendered useless and lack of realism as tough units like a wose/ ent would die by one successful strike, just like a goblin.
It has also been noted that other CCGs usually use HP-Tracking if the attacker chooses the target and don’t use HP-Tracking if the defending player chooses the target. No reasons have been mentioned for this so far.
Additional arguments:
Number of cards in play
From a developers perspective I think one of the most important factors would be: how many unit-type-cards do we want to be in play. If each player would only control very few of these cards (say, max. 3), HP-tracking would probably be the way to go. We could simulate the ability to take several hits, and still have not too much administration to do etc. With more unit-type-cards in play the playability of such a system rapidly decreases.
Unit scale
From a thematic perspective single cards representing units consisting of several individual members would favor HP-tracking for all units. Sooner or later members of the unit, even if it is winning, would die and this unit would be weaker during the next battle. The unit would thin out and cease to exist. A workaround could be to pay an upkeep for each unit that has seen battle and still exists, which pays for reinforcements (units are “back to their original strength”, no HP-tracking needed; of course it would be a bit less exact than HP-tracking).
If a single card represents an individual creature however, HPs might not be needed for more realism. In real life you don’t have HP that get reduced with each blow. Most of the time a blow will put you out of action or it won’t. If you can still use your left leg after it got hit, next round’s blow to your right arm won’t change that. And I doubt that you can concentrate on the same spot in a sword-and-magic-fight with a dozen participants (in contrast to a boxing match for example).
Additional ideas:
Wounds for big units
While HP-Tracking for all units might not be desirable there is still room for exceptions. Some units (like Great Trolls) might not die as soon as the attackers value(s) surpasses their defense value, but instead take a wound, represented by a marker. As soon as they would take the next wound they die (or they could take 2 or 3 wounds before dying, might be playtestworthy to find out when this gets cumbersome). That “next wound” could of course still be during the same attack, as long as the attackers value is at least twice as much as the defense value.
Damage prevention and healing
Damage prevention is a phrase that somehow comes to mind, but is very vague and I think should therefor not be introduced as a game term. Instead we should distinguish between different ways to “prevent” damage (presuming a MtG-like combat-system in the examples – all attackers offense values are added up and compared to the (combined?) defense values of the defender(s)):
“Weakening” – would reduce the stats of a certain unit (thematic: through magic, poison, …)
“Armour” – would reduce the attack value of each unit that attacks the armour-wearer (thematic: armour (magical or physical, defense skills against multiple oponents, …)
“Toughening” – would increase the defense stats of the attacked unit; differs from armour when being attacked by several units: armour+1 would give each attack -1, while toughening+1 would tip the balance only +1 in favour of the defender (thematic: health boost, defense skills, …)
“Damage reduction” – would only be applied after attack and defense stats have been compared and if the attack value(s) exceed the defense value(s); would reduce the difference, defender gets to live/ gets no wound if the difference can be reduced to zero; differs from toughening in that a healed defender would still count as hit/ injured, which might be important to special abilities like poisoning (thematic: first aid-type healing, magical or otherwise, …).
“Recovery” – losing a battle would not need to mean that a unit is “dead”; it might be severely injured and recover over time through the help of other units (thematic: healer, …), special cards (thematic: healing spell, miracle, …) or its own special abilities (thematic: wose – recovers if it didn’t receive e.g. two wounds at once); recovering woud mean that it gets to be reshuffled into the deck – the healing process might be long, and it’s uncertain how long exactly. Or there might be special recovering abilities, that put the recovering creature e.g. back into the hand (super-fast) or the fifth card on top of the deck or whatever (dependign on how many cards are drawn each round etc.).
“Reviving” – getting a card back from the discard pile into the deck, hand or (directly into) play (thematic: reincarnation, Frankenstein, …)
“Necromancy” – removing units in the discard pile (or going there) from play in order to put own cards/ tokens into play (thematic: skeletons, undeads, …)
As you can see, “healing” isn’t used to described a game mechanic, as our imagination of “healing” can range from sending a patched up fighter back into battle to a long stay in the hospital (abbey, …) in order to fight in coming battles.
Conclusion:
A system that I think is consistent both mechanics- and theme-wise would be:
Game mechanics
Each player usually controls several units (> 3).
No HP-Tracking for regular units, as it would need too much administration and game pieces.
Certain “boss-monster-/character-like” units might take 2 or 3 wounds to kill, as this adds variety to the units and game tactics, while still needing only 1 or 2 markers.
Several possible ways to “prevent damage” and “heal” – see above.
Thematic
Unit-type cards represent indivual beings, a scale much like in BfW (but without names, experience etc.).
A single game is rather about the control of a single village (region, …) than a whole kingdom, as otherwise the cards would need to represent small armies. It’s also closer to the scale of BfW, therefore it might be easier to re-use art from BfW (pure speculation here).
P.S.: I hope the formatting works…
Edit by snowdrop: No it doesn’t
But I fixed it. WP doesn’t support the forum [tags] that you used. It does however support casual html tags and also detects linebreaks properly.
#6 by snowdrop on July 8, 2010 - 00:29
Quote
Wow. That was some extensive feedback there Witty.
I’ve read it twice now and think I have the following in reply:
Yes, correct. That was the arguments in the comments, by Torben.
I myself don’t support that as a valid argument: I’m of the opinion realism a) doesn’t matter while designing the rules system and b) can always be created ad-hoc: We can thematically explain pretty much anything if we use our creativity, can’t we? That work can always be done after all rules are in place. Rules first, theme second. I don’t see the necessity of themeing while also doing the rules (even if it could be done ofc, I myself don’t do it as it takes too much time and would typically have to be re-done with every rule revision while developing).
I’d define “tough” in other terms than HP, if HP isn’t around. The statement that they’d all die “as easily” doesn’t have to be true. It clearly isn’t in Mtg:
There all creatures die if their DEF is penetrated. Does that mean, since they all have 1 “HP”, that a goblin in MtG with 1 ATK / 1 DEF is as tough as an Ent in MtG that has 4 ATK / 7 DEF? Clearly it doesn’t.
How hard a creature is to kill doesn’t necessarily relate to how many HP (if any) it has. In systems that do use HP:s it usually does though, but that doesn’t mean that the same can be said about systems that don’t.
even if it’s tempting to draw that conclusion.
You’re right – it wasn’t explained.
You bring up a very cool topic that I’m sure plenty of game designers and players alike have much to say about.
My own explanation to why it tends to be the way I described it is that a system where a) everyone has 1 HP and b) everyone can pick their targets usually becomes a very primitive one: It will all be about who can get to hit first and hardest, about having the hugest creature in play.
Even more important is that such a system would mean that:
a) Less decisions are made (defending player doesn’t ever have to point out who is defending), which in return implies a number of things…
b) One of them is that it probably takes away some thinking and also plenty of strategy.
c) Another is that every player will always do optimized attacks: You will always target the creature that does most direct or indirect damage to you. This breaks the game in a sense: It keeps removing key creatures from the game all the time, effectively making it harder to build a game where cards interact with them and i.e. their specific race, class or other creature attribute that might exist in a game.
Fully agree.
For the version I’m working on right now I imagine 3 – 7 creatures to usually be around, per player. This would actually vary somewhat with alliance one played since their units don’t use the same “mana curve”.
My reason for not working on a rule set that uses 1-3 creatures per player, in game, at any time, is that we already have art for 120 units. If we would use such a system we’d already have a gigantic cardpool. That isn’t a bad thing, at all. But, it would still mean that every time somebody played the game at least 114 of the different creatures are not in any players deck if each player fields 3 unique units per game/deck. That seems like a waste.
My real objection against such a system is really not well built – it’s just my personal preference to not play such a game. I haven’t analyzed exactly why that is, maybe because such games are more often than not kid-centric and usually have more simplistic combat systems with less strategy?
I am not against trying out such a system if it can be designed in an interesting way that makes it into something more than hit-harder-thing. Heck, I even tried something similar, as can be seen in the very early rules in here that are still available online in the main menu.
I just won’t pursue that path myself right now. If somebody else is up for that task they have my blessing and I’ll give them my full support and everything they need – just contact me.
I agree on that: HP’s have nothing with realism to do in a way which would connect to reality. Rather it is a “health model” that is a game world construct. We can stay more or less true to BfW, or other games. In that sense it can have “reality” connected to it.
Again, I state that anything can be explained and make realistic – no matter what the mechanic is in a game. It’s just about creativity and choosing the right words, to put a theme and put the mechanics within it’s context.
I agree on your thoughts on unit scaling and HP:s usually being used to represent a unit’s health/size. But here I think it varies much between game genres: While what you suggest is usually true in war-boardgames and many other games like them, it’s also equally true that single creatures have HP:s attached to them in computer games, and even in card games.
Personally I don’t care either way of how it’s done: I can fully accept both scales. For WT however unit portraits will always be of one creature, and not a Squad of them
(Reason: Economy, or rather, lack of it.)
In one case HP would say something about the state of the individual, in the other it would say the same but about his squad instead. It’s, for me, just theme in the end. I.e. if we want a game where we want to simulate battles conducted by 10 000 soldiers the squad-approach is better. It’s merely a thematic discussion about what message we want to send to the player.
Personally, and due to how our artwork looks like, I’d say we whould not send the idea of squads/armies. Instead, we give the players a tale where skirmishes between somewhat identifiable creatures take place. We see an elvish ranger against an orc – not a elvish army against an orch army. Since we’re some kind of leader/king/whatever in the game, we get to make decisions about many individual destinies.
(Yeah, why would a king waste time on that instead of commanding whole armies, one might say. It’s not realistic. There we go again
I’d answer that it is realistic, because these are small skirmishes that will have huge impact for reason x. Much like Frodos did
As seen, anything can be explained and woven into great detail if we want to. Truth be told, nothing makes any sense or is “realistic” in LotR, but nobody complains…because that’s not why we watch it..)
This is an interesting idea. The way I would implement it would be something in the lines of:
1. These units are not counted as creatures and are of a totally other card type.
2. They would be comparable with titans, deities, gods etc.
3. They should be rare, and maybe a rule saying most 1 in play per player.
5. They have to fill some other role/function that is or can’t be filled with another existing cardtype.
This is not what you suggested, but I think it makes more sense than your original suggestion because that was really only the notion of a “better” warrior. (Also, I might tempt to offer what you were discussing by adding “mounts” to the game…)
I agree there should be normal warriors which are distinctively “better” than normal creatures. I’d call them “unique” or “legends” or whatever, and also apply the unique-rule to them, that only one of them may be fielded at a time. Example would be an elven general or orich tribesleader etc. My hope is to be able to make their abilities stand out and make them interesting that way instead of giving them more HP. That should play well with the titan/deity-cardtype I suggested above.
This does ofc bring a zillion questions to mind: What do the deity-card types do? I for one wouldn’t ever unleash them in direct combat with usual creatures. I donät want them to be “overpowered creatures“. I think they need a totally different and fitting role.
In MtG this was implemented recently, as “Planeswalkers”, but I’m not all too impressed with them really, even if more or less all deity-cards will resemble them in any game.
Question remains: How can they get a unique function and identity, without scaling of at the expense of other already existing types? Must be many ways… *thinking*
Seconded. Btw, you’re a master at theme.. I sens you want to be involved in naming or creating abilities
Exactly what I had in mind, minus the new deity cards. I’m not against them, nor for them, until I see how they can get a unique identity/function and also add to the game enough to justify them. Simply beefing up a regular creature in the field doesn’t cut it for the set I’m working on. We need something else.
(Btw, please read the design document at the wiki http://WTactics.org/wiki …might help)
#7 by Witty on July 10, 2010 - 19:11
Quote
Okay, things are starting to become a little clearer for me… when I first stumbled upon this blog the wiki had just been set up, so I explored that first and still had the ruleset with “kingdom zones”, “blocking an attack” etc. in mind when I wrote my post. I didn’t know the rules on the blog are more up to date.
What made the “Wounds” idea appealing to me was that these creatures would really stick out on the battlefield, giving the players some landmarks on their imaginery battlefield. Just having some creatures with higher DEF-values (say: 12) wouldn’t do the trick, as there would still a flowing transition when you also have creautures with DEF 10 or 11 (to have significant gap between these values on the hand might make them to hard to kill, as . “Wounds” would be the qualitative leap to make them stick out. And they would create some form of continuity over several rounds, as players try to wear these creatures down.
Of course that was while I imagined the combat to rather “free”, like in MtG for example. With a spatial combat system like in the current system they probably don’t add that much (if anything). And the “Wounds”-concept in itself would neither be complicated nor an integral part of the combat resolvement, so I think it could also be added later on, while the focus is on card design and balancing. I’m not sure about the “deities”-concept though, right now it sounds to me a bit like a way to thematically justify wounds and then coming up with additional rules? (but of course, that may simply be because I don’t know what you have in mind with it)
#8 by xchokeholdx on July 13, 2010 - 10:07
Quote
Just to throw my 2 cents into the mix:
another option would be to have a mix of both worlds:
as you wrote:
You can mix this up to get an even better and perhaps more interesting system:
Option A:
• All creatures have 1 HP, and there is no Attacker of Defender status, but players alternate turns assigning creatures to another. (I assign my creature A to your Creature Z, my opponent does the same for his Creature Y to my Creature C, etc..)
this can be expanded of course, by adding rules like: This creature may not be assigned to xxx; This creature must be assigned first/last, etc etc..
This way, players will sometimes (depends of why goes first) be able to take out that important creature, and sometimes be able to protect it by assigning it to a weaker one.
Option B:
• Creatures have different HP (varying from 1-6 for example), and there is no Attacker of Defender status, but players alternate turns assigning creatures to another.
Loser of combat takes a wound token. If wound tokens=life value on card, creature is killed.
This way, we can easily differentiate between stronger and weaker units, but players will still be able (depending who assigns first) to protect/kill the creature of their choice.
Even though I prefer to have creatures with different life point, I think Option A would be the way to go. It makes a cleaner game, and with gametext on cards, we can make sure that Wose is stronger than a goblin:
Wose gametext: Opponents my not assign Goblin creatures to this creature.
I think if you really want to have a successful game, tokens should be kept to a minimum.
Edit by snowdrop: Changed the [quote] tags to < blockquote > (without spacing).
#9 by Darker_Dreams on July 29, 2010 - 01:26
Quote
I haven’t read through all the back and forth in the comments, but some basic things jumped out at me that I felt were worth commenting on.
First; I did catch a bit of back and forth about how the kind of HPless system you are talking about functions in magic. As I said, I haven’t read the rules, but I did want to make a comment about how easily a system where I choose who I attack and fights are always 1 v 1 becomes a simple arms race to the biggest creature. Even breaking it down so 1 large creature can be brought into conflict with many small creatures, the value of that depends on the circumstances in which it happens.
My concern is this; while it’s generally less “fiddly” in terms of tracking things, the balance of the game tends to be much more fragile because all combats have relatively large effects on the game board.
Second, I wanted to suggest some alternate versions of the schemes you’ve already discussed for HP;
Tokens as Life; There are some games where instead of adding tokens as the creature/character takes damage you place tokens equal to its Hit Points on it when it comes into play and then remove them as they take damage.
Similarly, some games use cards (taken from the draw pile, discard pile, hand, or outside of the game, depending on the effect desired) placing them under the cards in game for various reasons; actions taken/available, hp/wounds taken.
Those are some quick variations I saw that you overlooked in your breakdown.
I’m going to be mulling on this game for a bit, thinking about suggestions. Are you familiar with the CCG Warlord;Saga of the Storm?
#10 by snowdrop on July 29, 2010 - 14:42
Quote
@9:
Agree on that one, hence,in the most recent rules I work on, I don’t use a targeting-system. Instead I go with the MtG way of handling it: Player assignes his attackers, and then opponent his defenders, if any.
Would you mind explaning more about the balance-thing? I don’t follow. *hides in shame*
Only time the outcome of a combat has a really huge impact is if a) you block with a key creature to your strategy and you get it killed. If so, why did you risk blocking with it? ; ) b) You don’t block, and a really huge opposing creature does massive damage to you. Then again, for the other player to ever have such a super-attack dealing creature in play he’d need to have paid for it… and in that process he sacrificed other things he could have done for the gold.
About tokens as life: I have a memory of discussing it somewhere above actually.
Drawback, except for the eternal tokenizing, is that such a system will usually require you to move one additional token compared with the system where you place tokens on a creature when it gets wounds: In the token-as-wounds-system a player would never place the last token on the creature – instead he’d discard it. The same can’t be said about the tokens-as-life-system
(Yeah, it’s not a huge difference, but what little difference it is, I’d argue it’s a case against it clearly. Or..? Hrm…)
Nopes. Sadly I’m only familiar with MtG and DoomTrooper, and due to costs I won’t ever become really familiar with anything else except free CCG:s.
But please do tell. Is it good? What potential do you see in it? And how does it measure up to MtG? If you’re interested in “porting” WTactics into an already existing system I’m all fine with that if you want to do it
I’d be happy to set you up.
#11 by Darker_Dreams on August 7, 2010 - 16:04
Quote
How do you do those quote boxes?
I read the rules on the blog which look to be fairly different from the rules you linked to. I think you overshot where you want to go in your movement towards a MtG style game because strategically it looks very similar.
Re; Large shifts in power through non-hit point combat and fragile balance:
To use an MtG example; attacking with a 1/1 weenie then killing a 5/6 blocker by casting two giant growths. Alternately two lightning bolts requires no attacker and most of the math remains the same. Yes, you have to pay with both main resources, cards and mana, and it’s strategy.
Fragile balance; The resource cost becomes much more important to balance and doing it a little wrong can have much larger impacts as a single use of the card has a disproportionate impact. ie; What if WotC had made Giant Growth +6/+6 or even +5/+5 for 1 green rather than it’s current +3/+3? At what point can you reliably say it’s balanced and at what point that it’s broken? Any time you make cards on/off the table a binary state you remove wiggle room in balance.
Large power shifts;
I’m assuming in all this that we agree that a 5/6 creature, costing 7 mana to cast, (really its 5-8 depending on its abilities, 5 means it gives the controller large disadvantages or the opponent large advantages while 8 gives the controller significant advantages) is a large block of power on the board, but it’s just been removed with 2-3 mana expenditure (depending on how you want to count it).
Either way there is suddenly a large change in the amount of power on the board and very little that can be done to plan for it.
Re; About tokens as life:
I must have missed where you talked about putting tokens on to start with and taking them off. Once you go the token route, though, one more or less per card isn’t going to make a difference. Changing the scale from 1-5 life to 10+ life makes a huge difference, but 1 token more or less isn’t going to make or break a game. The directionality of tokens (on v off) is really just flavor and something that seemed to bother you. There are a number of games that do this very well; I mentioned Warlord, Vampire the Eternal Struggle is another.
Re; Warlord
It’s a commercial game, so I’m certainly not interested in porting to it. However it’s clearly an army v army game and has a number of concepts and mechanics I think it would serve you well to take a chance to become familiar with.
The rules are pretty clear and online. link; http://www.warlordccg.de/blog/rules/
#12 by snowdrop on August 8, 2010 - 00:18
Quote
< .blockquote.>How do you do those quote boxes?< ./blockquote.>
Minus the dots. It also takes b and i for bold and italic.
I ditched my original and first rules because they were flawed for several reasons (lacking good victory conditions, generating too much movement – cards is too hard to move on a table, only designed for one cardtype, not staying in “the slots” etc).
I agree the new ones look way more like MtG’s, but personally don’t have an issue with that. Once one would read the rules it would be quite clear that very much, possibly most, is very different from MtG and that what resembles most if perhaps the combat system, but even that is different. Some examples:
- Diff resource system – no lands, no cards as basic resources. That alone makes the game very different, much more than is first apparent.
- Possibly no random card draws at all.
- Somewhat Diff combat resolution: All combats are NOT resolved at the same time as in MtG. The order of resultion plays a huge role in WT ORC.
- Diff Equipment rules: Equip in MtG stack. They don’t in ORC if they share subtype. There’s also the points with how equipment is played and later o picked up when a creature dies.
- New Magic type: Rituals – played from Queue and “loaded”.
- Diff hand: In ORC we play with half hand in the open (the Queue). In MtG all is closed.
- I use an initiative system, MtG uses same order.
Personally my goal with the ORC is not to be original or create a game that nobody has seen before. It’s to create an open source community driven CCG that playes at least as well as some of the better commercial ones out there, where MtG would be a clear candidate.
Please don’t take this as arrogance or me saying what the goal should be for everyone involved in this project. I’m not. If somebody would want to create a version of WT that’s very unique and that does things radically differently from my own dev. path, I’d be the happiest person around and would weclome that dev. path into the WT project, assisting in every way I can. I invite any and all attempts to create a kick ass CCG, even if I myself have chosen a very specific path that I follow right now. Nothing hinders people from joining either me or creating a new dev. path, forming a new crew and start workign on their own fabolous ruleset.
I’m not sure how you want me to read the above: Is what you describe a bad or a good thing? I assume you mean it’s a bad one, but please correct me if I’m wrong.
In response, yes, I agree about what you wrote. I would however not describe it as a huge problem. As you mention yourself: With the weenie slaying a 5/6-blocker, the weenie-player had to:
1) Use up 3 slots in his deck.
2) Get all 3 cards in hand within a certain timeframe.
3) Pay them all in mana.
4) Make decision about when to spend his Instants and on what.
Honestly, it seems pretty balanced to me in that case. The player using phaties (green, I assume) does not have the same complications with getting the card combos right – fatties are way more self-suffcient.
You do give interesting examples though, and very common ones in MtG.
What disturbs me with MtG is, and this is maybe what you also express, that the situation with the lightning bolts is easy to create: For 2 mana(?) you’d zap the 5/6 fattie, that probably costed much more in mana. That’s a good trade off at the price of only one more card slot in the deck, especially given the ûber-flexible nature and versatility of the Bolts in contrast to a fattie that’s usually as shemxy as a lump of rock.
MtG is designed in a way where creatures aren’t really that important when it all comes around: The game allows you to play it without ever using a single creature in your deck. Heck, it allows you to win without ever attacking with one. I guess that’s a feature according to it’s designers, and it does indeed open much space for designing stuff. It also opens a somewhat strange meta-game that has some issues associated to all of this.
Flavour wise, it’s not at all what I want to accomplish with my dev path of WT. I want it way more creature centric. You won’t be able to win without creatures etc in what I try to create. In general, I think the “insta-creature kill” in MtG is heavily overused by it’s designers. Maybe it’s just a flavour thing, but I have always felt it’s way too easy killing of super-expensive and/or super-good creatures very very easily in MtG. I personally wouldn’t want to see that in WT.
I will field cards that insta-kill creatures, but, I will make them more expensive and generally harder to play. An example is creating them as a “Ritual” (subtype of the Magic cardtype): For a player to ever put that card into play (s)he’d need to put it into the Queue, thus, be made publicly viewable for all players to see. Then, it would have to be “loaded”, and that would usually take 1-3 rounds. Then it could be played if it’s threshold and gold cost was met.
Another example is to actually balance out the insta-kills/damage dealers more with texts like “may only target a creature that costs 3 or less” etc.
I don’t know if I follow here: The resource cost is always important to balance, equally important in any game, no matter what the HP an dcombat system is, since the resoruce system scales and is the same for all players within the context of the game being played. Unbalanced costs in Jyhad(?) or another CCG that uses a HP-system are still as bad. Their badness just takes on another form.
Your question about what point we can say a card is balanced is impossible to answer without 1) some kind of norm set by it’s developer. Clearly, the MtG guys seem to consider much of the game balanced and peachy, while we seem to be distiurbed by some facts. 2) massive playtesting, comparing what happens on the field with how it was intended in the designer minds.
My norm will be to make creature-kills hard to accomplish outside of combat, and super-boosting in combat via instant would be expensive one way or the other.
You’re right that the wiggle room in balance is removed when the HP system is boolean, but I believe you draw the wrong conclusions from it: What you describe as wiggle room is actually just HP’s “compensating” or “masking” the other imbalances/problems that you speak of with i.e. the costs. In worst case scenario it just prolongs the problems – it doesn’t fix them automagically
Another relevant thing here is that, from what I can figure, the game becomes harder and harder to balance the more variables you add to each card. Non-boolean HP would add one more variable. Say it was 1 to 5, for the sake of simplicity… and it would still be very complicated to balance that stuff out properly. The higher the HP difference between creatures goes, the more probelmatic balancing it all. (That’s ofc true for any variable with a huge span, not only HP)
If you disagree, at what point – when adding additional variables to each card – would the game be harder to balance? Why wouldn’t it become harder /than it previousley was) to balance from one additional variable that went form 1 to 5 but harder by adding two or four new variables?
Summed up, I don’t think a variable should be added to fix design problems. That’s flawed design and would say more about my shortcomings in creating non-creature cards that worked well than about the HP system itself.
Agree fully.
I suggested a way to solve such issues in the above. Would you agree they could be a solution? Or do you suggest it’s unsolvable?
Btw, what do you think about Blue’s Counter-spells in MtG?
Agreed it’s not making nor breaking a game. It is however adding one totally unnecessary token to each creature/other cards that use them that way. In any creature intensive game that’s just a bad design call. However, I’m not a “professional” game designer and don’t represent the industry and lack education in these matters. I just speak my mind and can’t for the love of anything find a justification for counting “Life left” using tokens instead of counting “Wounds taken”. It only produces one additional token, for what, to live up to a theme, that could just as eaisly work with the wound-count instead? I dunno… in the end, you are right though: This is just a detail, even if it could add to the heap of crap in an already crappy or very admin-heavy game
The pile of shit is the sum of all turds.
Oh. It’s perfectly legal for you to take every rule/idea from that game and relase a game of your own. In 99,9% of all cases with games the game’s mechanics, rules etc are not patented. Meaning, the ideas are free for you to take and convert/theme mix/redo/use however you want, even if you wanted to go commercial with it. The fact that the Warlordguys are commercial doesn’t change that. There could of course be chance that they have indeed patented something, but usually companies tell that out loud, and in any case, their patent would only be valid in whatever obscure contry that announced it legit to begin with (usually only in the USA). What is not legal for you to take from that game is it’s art, text etc – all it’s material is copyrighted, and using it wouldn’t be good. Enough about that though, I only suggested it since you mentioned the game and I thought you thought it had merit.
I’ve read it’s quick-rules, and like them. I wouldn’t mind playing it if it was free, and I also think they want with a good distro solution for it.
Dice rolling in combat is ruled out on my dev path for WT. Reason is it generates additional admin each combat (which is often) by rolling a die, and, more importantly, it prolongues the game unnecessary by allowing misses, maybe even several of them in a row. Each creature would possible linger around much longer on the table as well, and that might be a good thing as well as a bad one, depends on what pace and focus one wants. Lastly, I’m against the dice combat system because it introduces yet another random element, one that’s even involved in a cruical phase. For each additional random factor that’s added to a game, the less that game becomes about skills. (Not to suggest that it’s not still more skill based than luck based. It could very well be, but the statement is still true – it now is “lesser” about skills.)
I’m aware that much of what I write is subjective and that it relates to taste and design goals. I have however gotten the impression you have plenty of valuable thoughts and that you know your way around a CCG. Why don’t you give developing a shot? Start a new dev path of your own for WT, I’d assist you with anything you need (all is available from our downloads section, but still – site access and what not). If you believe you can create a nice CCG that plays the way you want a CCG to play then it’s a terrific chance to get a new hobby and prove your points as well.