VC feedback from Worlds 2008?

Where the Virtual Boyz plan their latest capers
User avatar
Thorsten the Traveller
Council Member
Posts: 1615
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Tilburg, Netherlands

Post by Thorsten the Traveller » Fri Oct 03, 2008 2:06 pm

Are you sure we can the use original artwork in 'official' Council endorsed cards?
Just when I put in the effort to collect extra copies of the unleasheds... :wink:
Individually printing/cutting/glueing takes alot of effort indeed. If there were a way to provide complete cards to everyone interested, that could make a great deal of difference.

Splitting up cards is a nice solution if it's possible, I agree, nobody wants unnecessary lengthy or complicated cards. But then there is the issue of the number of new cards to deal with. If cards are less complicated, does that mean the public's ability to absorb more of them increases?

I also agree that not all cards must lead players down a specific path. Like always there are utility cards, and there are mission cards, and we should strike a balance. For example Never Refuse, or Jambo's proposal for Know much about You, are excellent utility cards. However, it is not easy to invent creative, good utility cards, that aren't overpowered. Personally I think that that number is essentially much more limited than the number of mission-like cards, because you don't want to change the mechanism of the game too much either.

Since I recently spent alot of time designing my Arda cards I had struggled with using more Tarzan Talk ('me Tarzan you Jane') as well, or mathematical language as you call it. It is not only a matter of elegance that we haven't, so far. Same goes for the keywords. Meccg is much more complicated than other ccg's so often you need to use more precise wording to make it waterproof ruleswise. If you don't, the list of different constructions or keywords becomes very long. I don't think it matters that much that players have gotten used to the more exact/complete written phrases, and they can handle Tarzan talk, but using many different constructions or keywords will create too much confusion.
For example, there's 'cannot be duplicated', cannot be duplicated on a company, on a character, by a given player, in one turn...now for FotO it might be simple, but there would be like 4 different keywords needed to express this nuance.
Other ccg's also use more symbols. Some people might like it, I don't, my brain is more trained in words than in symbols.

btw. if you use less written words and more punctiation, you also use more hard returns, which increases the use of space on the card, so although it's more synoptic and clear, it doesn't usually save space, should that be an issue of concern.

@armory/swag: ok
@tower: nobody plays Shelob, it's about time they should? or, play her yourself. Also, tower players include many prowess bonus items/cards => dump Shelob, she's one of a kind. Pukel-men, those were guarding Dunharrow and used by the Woses to protect their families, so it's actually thematical nonsense to equate them to Silent Watcher, though I guess pukel-creature just means 'animated stones.' => skip them, nobody cares about Silent Watcher, until we invent a pukel-creature booster...
@black horse: these got 4 prowess to keep the RW in play, yet low body because at 7 RW would be discarded. So if we change prowess, I'd also up the body. => 2/7 warrior?
Stone-age did not end because man ran out of rocks.

marcos
Posts: 2010
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2007 5:41 pm
Location: Córdoba, Argentina

Post by marcos » Fri Oct 03, 2008 8:44 pm

i agree on everything you said :D

Frodo
Posts: 505
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 5:09 am
Location: NYC, NY

Post by Frodo » Sun Oct 19, 2008 1:52 am

Okay, I edited the Tower and Black Horse with your ideas, Thorsten. Jamie--we are now ready to update these for gccg testing!

--Frodo

marcos
Posts: 2010
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2007 5:41 pm
Location: Córdoba, Argentina

Post by marcos » Fri Oct 24, 2008 7:51 pm

Frodo wrote:Okay, I edited the Tower and Black Horse with your ideas, Thorsten. Jamie--we are now ready to update these for gccg testing!

--Frodo
we need people to keep testing the latest modifications, what do you think about organizing a new Virtual tourney soon?

marcos
Posts: 2010
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2007 5:41 pm
Location: Córdoba, Argentina

Post by marcos » Tue Nov 11, 2008 2:20 pm

hello guys, here is the latest xml with this edits:
Frodo wrote:New Virtual Card Edits

Tower Raided
new Text:
"Against characters in this company, strikes from Nazgûl, Orcs, and Trolls lose prowess equal to the MP value of this card."

Btw, it says “strikes” so as to allow bonuses to work in CVCC. I removed Spiders, and added only Shelob. I also removed Men, and added Pukel-men. Now, I’m not sold on adding Pukel-men—we can leave them out if we want something keyable to dark areas that is still strong—however, if the Pukel-men are the same as the Silent Watcher (are they? I always thought they were) then I think it is *very* thematic to have them on the list considering it was only brute charisma power that enabled the hobbits to get passed them. But maybe I’m wrong about this plot point. (?)

Swag
New text:
Also playable as a permanent-event on a minion
company. Once during your organization phase, you may
tap a character in this company to place a non-unique minor or major
weapon/shield/helmet/armor item from your sideboard
with this card. If a character in this company plays a Man
faction successfully, an item may be immediately played from this card in lieu of
a free minor item.

Note that only a character in a company that tapped for swag can now play the item.

Black Horse:
New text for last sentence: “You may only play one Black Horse per site per turn.”
New abilities: 2/7 warrior

Oh! I hadn’t understood the issue that this card could be used as a fighter. Doh. Okay, I say we make it 3/6 and lose the warrior ability, or else we keep the warrior ability and give it a prowess of 2 only. Then, it’s kind of like a Noble Steed, except that it’s possible for it to get “wild and crazy” if you play a warrior card on it. Since keeping the warrior ability allows for more card interplay, I guess I’d suggest the second option. The only problem there is that when he’s doing his shadow-land thing he’s going to have harder time fighting off Elf-lords… heh… Opinions please!

Armory:
New text:
When Armory comes into play, you must place
between three and four non-hoard minor items
(except Cram) from your sideboard under
Armory. These minor items are playable at
tapped and untapped Free-holds [ ] and Borderholds
[ ] (no more than two minor items per
site per turn). If there are no items under Armory, you
gain 1 marshalling point.

Jambo, thanks for pointing out the one-turn issue where you can get an MP very quickly.

(Note: There are no additions to First of Order yet.)

Last point. I was thinking about the complexity of wording issue, then I started looking at First of the Order, and realized how much this card bothered me.

Current text:
Playable on Saruman during the organization phase.
Tap First of the Order to give +2 to a corruption check
for a character in Saruman’s company (except Saruman)
bearing a ring or Palantir. You may discard this card to
give hero Saruman +2 to a corruption check from a spell
or while bearing a ring or Palantir. You may discard this
card and a character in fallen Saruman’s company to
prevent fallen Saruman from being eliminated by a
corruption check. Cannot be duplicated.

Not it’s abilities! but the way it is worded seems to require a lot of brain power to get through. So I started simplifying the words in my head, then when I was done, I realized I had turned the “full English-speak” into a more mathematical way of phrasing thnings that felt very familiar… it was like a MAGIC the Gathering Card! (And many other cards, from countless new CGGS. Meccg seems unique in its affection for ponderous, fully-explained sentences.

My Magic Version:
Playable on Saruman during the organization phase.
Tap First of the Order: +2 to a corruption check
for a character in Saruman’s company (except Saruman)
bearing a ring or Palantir.
Discard: +2 to a corruption check for hero Saruman from a spell
or while bearing a ring or Palantir.
Discard (and a character in company): Prevent fallen Saruman from being eliminated by a corruption check.
Cannot be duplicated.

The beauty of a more math-like speak is that it takes a shorter amount of time to get the same amount of info into the brain. However, I fear that players might be so used to the verbose language of MECCG cards that the above example would possibly be even MORE confusing. With more familiarity, however, I think these sorts of templates are good ideas. Thoughts?

--Frodo
i wonder if Jamie can make the graphics for us, so we can send it to wigy...
Attachments
vc1.rar
latest xml updated
(9.48 KiB) Downloaded 39 times
Last edited by marcos on Thu Nov 13, 2008 11:34 am, edited 1 time in total.

Jambo
Posts: 888
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 3:01 pm

Post by Jambo » Wed Nov 12, 2008 11:26 pm

Hi,
I've done all of these save First of the Order since it wasn't clear whether the text had been finalised yet, or whether it was still under discussion?

As soon as I know I'll send an updated batch to Marcos.

User avatar
Thorsten the Traveller
Council Member
Posts: 1615
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Tilburg, Netherlands

Post by Thorsten the Traveller » Wed Nov 12, 2008 11:33 pm

I'd say, why not test one card with math phrasing, see how we handle it and/or if it stirrs reaction, so let it be first of the order then -unfortunately not one of the more used cards, maybe Half an Eye/Nazgul Abroad would be better choice.
Stone-age did not end because man ran out of rocks.

marcos
Posts: 2010
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2007 5:41 pm
Location: Córdoba, Argentina

Post by marcos » Thu Nov 13, 2008 2:43 am

i like the math phrasing for first of the order, id say we can go with it! :)

Frodo
Posts: 505
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 5:09 am
Location: NYC, NY

Post by Frodo » Thu Nov 13, 2008 6:30 am

Okay, we can test the math phrasing.

Although honestly, now that I read it again it seems... weird. Very un-middle-earth.

As Ben and others would say, it's probably just too long now... to many caveats.

Frodo

Frodo
Posts: 505
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 5:09 am
Location: NYC, NY

Post by Frodo » Thu Nov 13, 2008 6:55 am

Oh, did we decide whether the ability of Swag to be used to transfer items during battles is okay? I think we did for now, but I can't remember if any other issues were raised.
--Frodo

marcos
Posts: 2010
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2007 5:41 pm
Location: Córdoba, Argentina

Post by marcos » Thu Nov 13, 2008 11:25 am

yes, we did for now.

xml updated with a minor change on Black horse

Locked

Return to “Development”