Yeh I think ultimately that making certain decks too consistent is what they are concerned about, particularly combo. In terms of designing cards to suit it, end of the day they want to cater for johnny player archetypes (I think I have the correct psychographic; the one who want to experience things) who love combos. So they definitely like to cater for combo players but need to keep it below tier 1 if not tier 2 to keep the play experience largely positive as combo looks to limit interaction which is considered negative. Even agro decks could become oppressive if you could keep a couple and ship the rest.
You also have older formats where you just couldn't do it, and I don't think they'd like to have different mulligan systems for different formats.
The mulligan rules for FFG's L5R, arkham horror and Netrunner are like you mentioned, but these games have far more restrictive systems.
It seems that we have a fundamental difference of opinion here:
The post you linked to (and by extension you) argue from the standpoint that control decks and cards are a negative play experience and use only subjective reasoning to establish this. From a debate perspective the post you link states their previous experience/skill and says (paraphrasing) "this sounds like a loser whining", this is typically used when the base argument doesn't have enough merit to stand on its own. By bringing up the previous experience the reader should assume that this person knows what they are talking about, while lamp shading the criticism served to limit its impact. That both of these tactics are used devalues the poster's standpoint from the start.
I saw nothing in that post that established why control decks create NPE any more than say a Lion swarm deck. Both are frustrating situations that you have to account for and learn how to play around if you want to be successful competitively.
In any card game a new player playing against a competitive player using an optimized deck is not going to have a good time, unless the competitive player sandbags and explains things to the new player. Taking the interactions and meta of your FLGS and trying to apply that to the game as a whole is foolish, full stop.
At the end of the day the post you link to starts from the premise that the cards are poorly designed, I disagree with that premise. Since I find the premise faulty I say the post is not "good". That the main thrust is based on one person's dislike of playing against control decks I say it does not provide anything to think about.
Hard to have a discussion with rhetoric like that. All good mate, thanks for the reply.
it's hard to have a discussion when one party refuses to have a discussion ;P
I just don't like I'm right and your wrong discourse. He made valid points for sure. I'm just trying to compare the design process between what I'd argue are the 2 best card game design company's and I think there is a gulf between them and FFG could learn a lot from what is essentially public knowledge. The article I referred too clearly is over the top but I don't completely dismiss it. I just wanted to use it as a springboard into what I see is a problem that FFG has with all/most of its OP games. But I think my mistake is that it is too early in this games discovery to associate it with mistakes the company has made already. Which is fair enough. I am just really interested in how FFG works and was hoping for some insight.
Also I framed the whole thing really poorly. The title is incorrect by calling it a 'good' article. Also my main reasons for posting is the bottom comment, which I believe would set a different context if it had of been up the top. The guy above refuses to mention my points on the grounds that the article is 'wrong' or not 'good'. My bad. First time I've posted a link. Oh well.
I'm not familiar enough with crab cards to point out any specific cards, just that their whole setup seems like a direct counter to lion strategies.
• Lion like to make military attacks; crab likes to defend on military.
• Crab's stronghold directly counters lion's stronghold.
• Kisada is especially rough for lion, because lion doesn't have access to a lot of disposable actions.
• Hiruma Ambusher does shut LPB down.
• As a general thing, I've noticed lion's tendency to turn early victories into momentum to overwhelm the opponent later. Crab, as the defensive clan, has the potential to shut this strategy down by matching lion step-for-step in terms of military power.
• Lion's strength is in overwhelming political decks with more military than they can hope to muster. Crab, as a military clan, can take everything lion throws at them, and then punch right back, often with a military conflict of their own (The Mountain Does Not Fall is really strong for this purpose). Meanwhile, lion rarely leaves a lot of military dudes for defense, and so is ill-prepared to defend against crab's punch-back.
Nice analysis. I'm struggling for a win with dragon but the way you describe it there they should be able to play similarly. I might to adjust my play style. Thanks mate.
You're gonna have an extra tough time with dragon, especially if you play voltron style. Dragon's weakness is swarms, and you don't get any swarmy-er than lion. The new Agasha Sumiko card, along with the new Centipede tattoo, might help with that.
Yeh the agasha will be good for counter punching. I haven't seen the centipede tattoo yet.
I've been thinking about this. I think it's a little different then magic as the mana system is a growing a resource where as fate is a stationary sum (fundamentally obviously there are other inputs) I think it's less important to think about how many 1 drops etc, but your over all average of fate per 4 cards. I think that you want an average of 6 -7 fate worth of cards on your dynasty per turn for a mid range style deck (I'm playing dragon) this should allow you to hopefully stockpile some resource until you draw your big characters.
I think you need to find your average date per card and aim for 1.5. My dragon deck with 2 cores is 1.75 has seemed ok. That said I haven't played many games compared to you all.
This is just a theory and I'm happy to have it disproven, but it makes sense to me. I also think in dragon atleast you should always mulligan your champion away so you can build resources and a board presence before investing heavily.
First 2 have black in the casting cost. Second and only blue one requires you to have the creature alive on the battle field first and the land is not reanimation. To the hand is not the same as you still have to cast. Recursion is not the same as reanimation. The blue one is a colour blend but the custom card I'm pretty sure is a break.
Best argument yet for sure. But look at the hoops and restrictions it has so it's not broken. 7 mana cost. Turns into a 4/4. It actually creates a token. So at best it's reanimating its abilities. Read some of mark rosewaters articles or listen to his pod casts on the colour pie. I'm no expert bro and if you want to keep insisting that's fine, chalk it up as opinion. But if you are interested in game design like me add some dialogue and be open minded.
I play solo with one core and I have 2/3's of dunwich legacy and it seems fine with most investigators. Definitely get dunwih legacy next. Gives great cards, new investigators and the missions are all unique and awesome. Path to carcosa is the next story line coming out soon so it is my plan to be ready for that when it comes out and stay up to date. As the card pool increases it will become less important to have 2 cores for solo. That said if you can afford it, it would definitely improve most decks. I just want to spend my game money on other games.
I haven't done it in a while, but I definitely drafted sets better when I did it. Decked drafter was the best but cost money, but you get a blurb about each card, like a set review. Draft trainer wasn't as detailed but scored you. I haven't used these in years so I'm sure they have evolved. Both helped me a lot. Another good resource is lsv's limited set review (and any other pros) as they teach you how to value cards, which is the key.
Arkham horror the card game is blowing my mind. The location cards are wicked. The campaign and narrative style is quite unique. The character classes and variety of deck building restrictions are also cool. So much about that game is awesome!
Kahns was awesome but only triple kahns not fate reforged and dragons. original innistrad and shadows over innistrad were great as well. I have drafted each set heavily since alar block and my favourite was triple kahns. Morph plus tricolour made for a great draft environment. If you haven't tried original innistrad is considered one of the greats. Flashback is a great mechanic and obviously transform cards are the bomb. Of the standard legal my fav would be amonkhet or Soi. Prob soi, delerium is a great mechanic.
I know you say that high toughness, low power creatures were all over that place, but a quick search reveals that more cards in the set had either square stats or higher power than toughness. Only 19 creatures out of 116 creatures have higher toughness than power. Perhaps that's a misnomer?
I think one of the main issues was lack of removal to support soul bond. My least favourite by a lot.
Priorities in drafting BREAD B- Bombs: Anything that can possibly have a major affect on the game, good examples are the Planeswalkers, Master of the Wild Hunt, Bogardan Hellkite, etc
R- Removal: Anything that effectively gets rid of creatures, Doom Blade, Unsummon, Essence Scatter, Rod of Ruin, etc
E- Efficient spells, or Evasion: Creatures with evasive abilities (flying, unblockable, etc) or spells like Giant Growth, Righteousness, Might of Oaks.
A- Aggro: Aggressive creatures, quick and mana friendly, Centaur Courser, Warpath Ghoul, Mold Adder, Elite Vanguard, Silvercoat Lion
D- Dregs: The rest, cards that don’t usually get picked, they get handed over Least Important
Counter spells are generally bad in limited. There really doesn't seem like many win conditions- 1 trampled and 1 flyer. Not enough removal. Def don't want 18 lands. Cycling can actually allow you to run less. Curve is good. Overall I would not be happy with this.
I'm thinking pandemic style. You have to find escape route and build tech to use it before; invasion, run out of fuel or mutiny. Or if survival is main goal at least thematically you could be getting rescued so you need to survive x turns and have an active distress signal. Or trying to find a habitable planet before invasion, fuel, mutiny. Maybe you have the remnants of humanity after earth died and you are searching for a home. Hope this helps
I came across a really interesting forum argument about this. A guy was booted off a couple of Facebook forums because he said a game was shit, in reference to a new game that the same designers had started a kick starter for. It turned out he started a BGG forum about 'said' game and if he was making any mistakes, as he and his game group could finish the game ridiculously easy (dungeon crawler board game). The designer jumped in and gave some advice about rules interpretations. Turned out everything they were doing was completely within the rules. The designer then told them it was their fault for playing that way. It escalated from there.
These exploits are what i understand are 'dynamics' which is the play that emerges from the mechanics. I guess it depends whether the dynamic leads to unenjoyable play. It is also interesting whether they are put in on purpose. I suppose as a game designer you wouldn't want any surprises and feel that you have tested it enough. That said if a game is successful it will get tested to the max.
Mark Rosewater talks about lenticular design. That is mechanics that offer strategy for beginners as well as a depth of strategy for the experienced players. I believe the answer is what ever creates the best experience of the type it is aiming for.
Mark Rosewater (MTG lead designer) calls it parallel design. Shows the importance of research and playing games. That said it depends why your creating. Not every game you make has to be "the one". You should keep designing games that are similar to hone your design skills (as long as they are fun). I intend to make a deck builder that will no doubt be similar to published games just so I can learn from it.
I'm gonna go against the grain here. I am in pretty much the same position and have just ordered a booster box. I played Magic CCG heavily, and certainly net decked and bought singles then. This time however I am ordering a box, therefore my wife and I can explore the cards and deck-building for ourselves. I feel just going for 'competitive' decks we will miss out a lot of just exploring the game and learning for ourselves.
This way of course depends if you are looking to play competitively soon (I'm not) and whether or not you can get access to boosters at a reasonable price. I live in Oz and although stock is drying up fast I found a good price.