Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

That's basically a reskin of Magic : the Gathering. 20 cards is a bit low, though.

What I mean is, players have a normal fantasy skirmish army based off of various cultures myth ages (So, you could have Greek Hoplites backed by Battle Minotaurs fighting Vikings and Giants). However, players also will have a small deck of cards that represent their gods meddling, which may be used to manipulate luck or give other bonuses. This would replace Warcasters/Psykers/Wizards as the Magic Mechanic. Players could hypothetically play the entire game without using favors, if they so desired.

There could be stuff like:

Aim of Artemis: When one of your models performs a ranged attack, play this card instead of rolling; this attack automatically hits.

Poseidons Path: Your Models ignore water terrain this round.

Hera's Wrath: When you draw this card, play it immediately. Your opponent draws two cards. Has a negative point cost.

Oh, OK. That's like BattleLore Magic.
____

BattleLore 1E - no idea about 2E.

Fine, carefully numerated, reasons describing the relative advantages (and contributions) of cards. I agree with most all of them.

For me: The physical act of slapping a card down on the table is eminently more satisfying than rolling double sixes (or something even more improbable using even more dice). Bam! Take THAT! Also satisfying, in a sly way, is just casually tossing a card at my opponent. Really, there are a number of ways that playing a card satisfies.

Playing a card as opposed to rolling definitely has a lot more player agency involved. That is not something I had considered before now.

Depends on the way the card is delivered, if the player has an involvement in the processes then the player can feel satisfied, if the card is just a random card taken from the stack, it probably is the same as a dice roll.

The equivalent is something like this: Make a bunch of dice rolls, in secret, and record the results. When it is your turn (or however the rules work), you make 'use' one of those dice rolls.

Agency exists wherever there is choice, no? Whether or not the original set of options is random, the order (and timing) of their play is under the players' control.

You talk like a dice generated worker placement kind of game mechanic?

I really like this idea and I suddenly feel there is an untapped potential in what you said.

It's more akin to Epic 40k / BFG Orders dice. The issue is keeping the dice hidden.

From a practical standpoint, counters / cards do the hidden order thing much better.

The secret rolling of X dice and revealing as needed is functionally identical to drawing X cards and playing them.

Just use the cards! You can put the instructions right on them, rather than requiring the player to match a number or symbol to a table. Plus, cards cannot be "nudged" or fudged like dice can.

I was thinking more of what I said dice generated worker placement, not hidden and used as needed.

Of course cards can do the things you say, but it was not what I was thinking.

Please elaborate on dice generated worker placement and how that would be utilized in a miniature wargame.

I do not have a working prototype at the moment, after all the idea came a day ago,but I am thinking the following, one could roll dice for each unit and assign the dice for actions the unit can do per turn, dice assigned giving the stat too, training could give re rolls or affect the amount of dice rolled, extra dice can be used to do an action more times but should be a lower number.

Or a unit could generate a pool of dice at the start of the turn and assign from this pool the dice it needs for its actions.

A more generic approach would be to have each unit generate "orders dice" plus some "command dice" and roll them at the start of the turn generating a pool of orders and commands and assigning them to units and external assets, units can take more order dice according to training and external assets cost combinations according to what they are.

All are just initial ideas at the moment with nothing tested to draw conclusions from but this is what I am thinking at this moment.

Some very interesting concepts! I don't know that I have seen such a system integrated into tabletop miniature war gaming and look forward to how this develops.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
I do not have a working prototype at the moment, after all the idea came a day ago,but I am thinking the following, one could roll dice for each unit and assign the dice for actions the unit can do per turn, dice assigned giving the stat too, training could give re rolls or affect the amount of dice rolled, extra dice can be used to do an action more times but should be a lower number.

Or a unit could generate a pool of dice at the start of the turn and assign from this pool the dice it needs for its actions.

A more generic approach would be to have each unit generate "orders dice" plus some "command dice" and roll them at the start of the turn generating a pool of orders and commands and assigning them to units and external assets, units can take more order dice according to training and external assets cost combinations according to what they are.

All are just initial ideas at the moment with nothing tested to draw conclusions from but this is what I am thinking at this moment.

Cool idea. Would the roll just provide action points. Once all were expended the Unit would be done being active?

OR

Would the roll indicate what orders were available to the unit? For example, you roll your action dice and get a 3. The action chart is the following:

1. Regroup and hit the dirt/take cover
2. Move to cover
3. Move
4. Move and shoot
5. Aim and Shoot
6. Charge an enemy unit

The result would indicate that the unit can choose to do 1, 2, or 3 but can NOT do 4, 5, or 6. Various factors such as native psychology, presence of a commander, injury level, etc would effect the roll?

Roll for action points always has the same issue, Player A rolls maximum, player B rolls minimum, how the game system balances itself and gives the "unlucky" player a fighting chance?

The more the difference (due to many dice or large numbers on dice) the more catastrophic the min max situation is.

Order dice should be more "generic" giving an "Advance order" should give the unit a few options to help compensate unit acting in a lesser initiative step, command dice could include unit been reinforced, increase initiative order, bypass an order dice or something similar.

Roll for APs works in a couple different ways, but I like the idea of a round being the total of A+B for both players, and alternating a dealer button specifies who activates the first unit. Max 2 APs per unit, and you have an interesting mini-game of which to activate, when, how.

If we both roll high, it's a very big round. If we both roll low, it's a very quick round. If it's high&low, it's an average round.

____

Should we have a MOD clean this thread, to move the AP discussion to a separate thread?

I started a new thread to talk about Action Points here: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/676234.page#8376959

Now, back to card decks. What situations are a good fit/bad fit for card deck mechanics?

A Deck of cards gives you control and predictability, any game that does not want such thing on the mechanic resolution is a bad fit and vice versa.

The fundamental thing about Cards is that they allow someone to draw a hand of actions / effects / modifiers, and play individual cards face down, and to reveal them one by one.

In a miniatures game context, the obvious thing would be to use faction-specific decks that define unit actions. To move X, to shoot, and so forth.

My Eldar deck has a card that lets me run a unit 10", whereas the Ork equivalent moves 8", and the Squat one moves 6". My Eldar deck has a lot of move and shoot, where the Ork deck has a lot of charge an fight. And so on.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
The fundamental thing about Cards is that they allow someone to draw a hand of actions / effects / modifiers, and play individual cards face down, and to reveal them one by one.
In a miniatures game context, the obvious thing would be to use faction-specific decks that define unit actions. To move X, to shoot, and so forth.

What potential benefit(s), or potential issue(s), does anyone see with using a small number of cards in something like this fashion;

1. Each player in say a skirmish-sized game gets (2) cards for each combat group they field: whether that be dedicated cards or just ordinary playing cards.
1a. Optional: Command chits (of some low number, 0-2, if not based on overall total leadership of a force) are placed face down for each combat group such as Advance in [X] manner, Prepare to Defend Area, and etc etc etc until that CG activates.
2. These cards are either [Activate to Move] the assigned/listed combat group, or [Activate to Shoot] with the assigned/listed combat group.
3. These cards will be placed, face down on the preceding card, alternating back and forth between the players into a combined deck - and subsequently revealed one at a time and resolved from top to bottom during the turn.
4. Order of laying down the first card is determined by some form of initiative/dealer marker/etc etc.
5. Command tests vs force/combat group Leadership rating(s) can allow a player's next card of either type for the assigned/listed combat group to be placed under rather than above the top stack card.
6. Once all cards have been placed onto or into the stack the top card is revealed and the turn begins until all cards have been used.
7. After end of turn effects/clean-up any cards for destroyed combat groups are removed and the process repeated until any victory condition(s) are achieved by whichever player(s).


- Command tests to place underneath the top stack card would obviously involve some revelation of their own desired turn order to an opposing player(s), but seems a balanced choice mechanic as any player can attempt to do the same.
- Command tests during a turn would probably be allowed in reaction to a combat group completing either movement or shooting to introduce the capability for an opposing player(s) to change tactics as targets or intentions are unmasked.

- Command chits are revealed (some or all?) when a unit moves or shoots, as either action is giving some indication of what a combat group has been directed to do for the turn.
- EWAR and the like would probably be best left as a reaction-based mechanic, otherwise I think players would just basically be guessing and for the most part not bother taking the time simply to waste a specialized yet flukey model function.


One potential problem I can foresee right off myself is that as per usual a force with numerous activations of either smaller or cheaper combat groups would still have an advantage in ''spamming''.

_
_

Balancing cards is the trick. If your cards are specials, and each unit can do a basic, then it's probably OK.