[Juna]

Puck, on 12 April 2012 - 08:19 AM, said:

Also, while I'm not a card games player myself, I like the idea. I'd be willing to help out with stuff, too.. What I can do, anyway.. Artsy stuff, maybe. Cards need pictures, right?

^

Yeah, this sounds like an interesting Idea and i would love to contribute some Art when/if it's needed.

[LaymanK]

It's kind of thrilling....we just put together the very first prototype of the game. Albeit it's on hand-written note cards so it's not pretty.
Now to start play testing to see if the game works like we think it should.
Stay tuned.

[Spidermule]

Well maybe im way off but...
Its my perception that malazan readers actually like complicated things :-)

[LaymanK]

Spidermule, on 20 April 2012 - 02:09 PM, said:

Well maybe im way off but...
Its my perception that malazan readers actually like complicated things :-)

You're not wrong about that...lol

[Blind Sapper]

I love card games, especially deck-builders! I don't think I would be much help, but I'm always willing. This is a great idea.

Sign me up for testing. Also, would it be possible to save the images of the (prototype) cards to a file, say, pdf, and post it somewhere, allowing "beta testers" to print them out and follow allong, modifications allowing?

This post has been edited by TheBlindSapper: 25 April 2012 - 02:22 AM

[LaymanK]

TheBlindSapper said:

1335320427[/url]' post='954610']
I love card games, especially deck-builders! I don't think I would be much help, but I'm always willing. This is a great idea.

Sign me up for testing. Also, would it be possible to save the images of the (prototype) cards to a file, say, pdf, and post it somewhere, allowing "beta testers" to print them out and follow allong, modifications allowing?

We do indeed intend to make the beta version "print and play" so that any of you can help test it out and offer feedback and ideas.
We may also do a video blog series to giveminsightnintomthe development process for any who are interested .

[chris777]

LaymanK, on 25 April 2012 - 04:32 AM, said:

TheBlindSapper, on 25 April 2012 - 02:20 AM, said:

I love card games, especially deck-builders! I don't think I would be much help, but I'm always willing. This is a great idea.

Sign me up for testing. Also, would it be possible to save the images of the (prototype) cards to a file, say, pdf, and post it somewhere, allowing "beta testers" to print them out and follow allong, modifications allowing?

We do indeed intend to make the beta version "print and play" so that any of you can help test it out and offer feedback and ideas.
We may also do a video blog series to giveminsightnintomthe development process for any who are interested .

You should somehow make this digital. So we can all play together. Otherwise I have no people in real life to play with.

Also, did your keyboard think the "M" key was spacebar for a few seconds? =)

[Grimjazz]

I love this idea. If at any time you need help with it I would be happy to lend a hand in any way I can.

[LaymanK]

Alrighty fans! We've posted the "alpha" draft of the unofficial Malazan Empire Card Game rules and we would love to have your thoughts and input. We'll get PDFs of the cards posted soon too so you can print and play test the game.

We hope to make this project chalk full of fan contributions to make it the most rewarding game possible.
Malazan Empire Card Game Rules

[sappers rule]

Looks good rules are slightly confusing Q how many players can play in a match (2-10?) and could this lead to a 8vs2 match with the team with the most players winning. I am still not sure about the phases but it looks interesting god work

[JLV]

The end of the Discard Phase section on page 4 is missing. Probably just a few words. On the same page, under recruitment phase, you have form instead of from.

That aside, looks interesting. Everything in there made sense to me, now we wait for the cards themselves to check balancing.

[LaymanK]

The game is currently designed for 1-2 players.

sappers rule, on 02 May 2012 - 11:51 PM, said:

Looks good rules are slightly confusing Q how many players can play in a match (2-10?) and could this lead to a 8vs2 match with the team with the most players winning. I am still not sure about the phases but it looks interesting god work

[LaymanK]

Thank you for the attention to the details with such acuteness. The rules page now has the typos corrected as well as a key piece of Setup information that I neglected to include: how many and which cards the players begin the game with (and yes, I just ended that sentence with a preposition).

JLV, on 03 May 2012 - 02:00 AM, said:

The end of the Discard Phase section on page 4 is missing. Probably just a few words. On the same page, under recruitment phase, you have form instead of from.

That aside, looks interesting. Everything in there made sense to me, now we wait for the cards themselves to check balancing.

[LaymanK]

All the PDFs of the cards needed to print and play the card game are now on the website.

Please play test and send all your feedback to us (info@cheekydingo.com)

http://cheekydingo.c...-card-game.html

[Tapper]

Couple of comments, without having played it yet (and won't for a while, terribly busy). Please don't take this as negative criticism, it may across as such as without playing it, I can only ask difficult questions and not comment on fluidity

You work with 14 standard abilities (sure, some of them are episode/event only), which can get confusing, especially for new and/or infrequent players. That's a lot. Sure, we like complicated (see the mafia forum ), but we also like fun. As an attached glitch: in the manual, these abilities are not listed alphabetically. Sure, it's a short manual, but it's a simple fix that makes look-up a second or two faster. The less time spent leafing the rulebook, the better.

On some cards, abilities are explained (example: Sacrifice on Soldiers) on others, just the ability name is used. Since Malazan readers are few and far between, chances are that the "owner" of the game (aka the Malazan fan) will introduce it to various friends, making most of those (s)he'll play it with, infrequent players who won't learn those abilities by heart, ever. I'd suggest to try and squeeze in the 'regular' abilities onto the card, if need be, sacrificing character traits (2nd Army, Squad, Human, et cetera). In a quick glance, I haven't discovered cards keying to these character traits (unlike soldier, mage, sapper, et cetera), which means they're flavor instead of mechanic.
In order to create additional text space for this purpose, you might want to consider moving the card stats (might, authority, et cetera) to the left border of the card, creating space for 1-3 lines of additional text.

Secondly, when looking at cost and influence, it seems that cards that add authority, consume the same amount of it in points. So, suppose I have to meet 2 authority for an episode. Now, I can either add a Noble directly to the goal - check, it works. Or, I can decide to add one to HQ (or Base of Operations) and then place another Noble at the goal. The two I gain from the BoO Noble are consumed by the other guy. Yes, I free up two points of authority, but is that generally worth a card, or will it be better to save that influence later on - aka, what's my net gain here?
Since everyone draws up to five cards, I kind of fear that hands will frequently clog up with high cost uniques of which only 1 or 2 will be playable from a hand in a given round, meaning that Entrenched and/or Tenacious cards will offer ridiculously good value for money compared to all others. Also considering unspent cards are discarded, such hands are a waste. Perhaps allowing players to keep 1 card in hand (aka, Draw Phase: draw up to five, Discard Phase: discard any number of cards until your hand size is 1 or less) allows a bit more strategy.

As an extreme example, efficiency vs cost. I'll be using Kalam as my main focus because he stood out:

I can put Kalam down for 6 authority (probably costs me anywhere from between 2-3 cards to muster that) and getting that kill effect, or use a horde of Soldiers (which I am likelier to draw and play individually, offering a lot of versatility) and equal his Might for only 2 authority in total, but losing the kill option. I expend fewer cards (meaning my hand is allowed be less than ideal compared to a hand required to play Kalam) and have the same Might gain.

On a strategic level, in a tight spot where you really need to remove a character, Kalam may be better. Printed abilities usually are, but since matching scores is a huge part of this game's goals, "soldier spam" is actually more likely to be viable. This even persists when you take Kalam's Adaptive trait into account: he can switch places, but I can put 2 soldiers down at 2 locations each, "copying" Adaptive, and still saving 2 authority. It's going to cost me almost my entire hand (but so will Kalam), but I get to draw 5 cards next turn, anyway

Finally, interactivity.
Most cards refer to 'you', 'yours', 'cards you control'. If this is intended as a co-operative game, why is there no 'you and any other players draw 1 card', 'all sappers', or even: 'the next player to play a card'...

P.S.: Ready and Expend are awesome, but somewhat dangerous terms. Wizards of the Coast is very, very protective of the 'tap' mechanic (aka turning a card sidewise to indicate its use), which this is. Iirc, they've gone to court over it and won, too, several times. If you intend to publish the game at some point, you might want to check into this and see whether or not you might get sued - other games (L5R's "bowing" and "straightening" for example) use it too, but it might be they're licensed or asked for permission or something. Not saying it will happen, but better safe than sorry .

[LaymanK]

Tapper - you're awesome for having such cogent feedback. Thank you!

You've touched on much of what the play-testing process is all about and it's only through actually playing the game do we start to get a true grip on the various balance issues such as the "cost vs. efficiency" quotients you mentioned.

As to the layout of the cards, what we have at the moment is nothing more than a skeleton, though it was a conscious design choice to put the Stat icons along the bottom in order to promote stacking the cards so the only the bottom needs to show which will allow for more room for the eventual artwork (should things proceed to a more complete product).

I'll definitely alphabetize the abilities in the rules.

Can't wait to hear what further input you have when you get the chance to play the game (have fun cutting out and sleeving the cards, I think I have carpel tunnel syndrome from that already )

Tapper, on 03 May 2012 - 05:31 PM, said:

Couple of comments, without having played it yet (and won't for a while, terribly busy). Please don't take this as negative criticism, it may across as such as without playing it, I can only ask difficult questions and not comment on fluidity

You work with 14 standard abilities (sure, some of them are episode/event only), which can get confusing, especially for new and/or infrequent players. That's a lot. Sure, we like complicated (see the mafia forum ), but we also like fun. As an attached glitch: in the manual, these abilities are not listed alphabetically. Sure, it's a short manual, but it's a simple fix that makes look-up a second or two faster. The less time spent leafing the rulebook, the better.

On some cards, abilities are explained (example: Sacrifice on Soldiers) on others, just the ability name is used. Since Malazan readers are few and far between, chances are that the "owner" of the game (aka the Malazan fan) will introduce it to various friends, making most of those (s)he'll play it with, infrequent players who won't learn those abilities by heart, ever. I'd suggest to try and squeeze in the 'regular' abilities onto the card, if need be, sacrificing character traits (2nd Army, Squad, Human, et cetera). In a quick glance, I haven't discovered cards keying to these character traits (unlike soldier, mage, sapper, et cetera), which means they're flavor instead of mechanic.
In order to create additional text space for this purpose, you might want to consider moving the card stats (might, authority, et cetera) to the left border of the card, creating space for 1-3 lines of additional text.

Secondly, when looking at cost and influence, it seems that cards that add authority, consume the same amount of it in points. So, suppose I have to meet 2 authority for an episode. Now, I can either add a Noble directly to the goal - check, it works. Or, I can decide to add one to HQ (or Base of Operations) and then place another Noble at the goal. The two I gain from the BoO Noble are consumed by the other guy. Yes, I free up two points of authority, but is that generally worth a card, or will it be better to save that influence later on - aka, what's my net gain here?
Since everyone draws up to five cards, I kind of fear that hands will frequently clog up with high cost uniques of which only 1 or 2 will be playable from a hand in a given round, meaning that Entrenched and/or Tenacious cards will offer ridiculously good value for money compared to all others. Also considering unspent cards are discarded, such hands are a waste. Perhaps allowing players to keep 1 card in hand (aka, Draw Phase: draw up to five, Discard Phase: discard any number of cards until your hand size is 1 or less) allows a bit more strategy.

As an extreme example, efficiency vs cost. I'll be using Kalam as my main focus because he stood out:

I can put Kalam down for 6 authority (probably costs me anywhere from between 2-3 cards to muster that) and getting that kill effect, or use a horde of Soldiers (which I am likelier to draw and play individually, offering a lot of versatility) and equal his Might for only 2 authority in total, but losing the kill option. I expend fewer cards (meaning my hand is allowed be less than ideal compared to a hand required to play Kalam) and have the same Might gain.

On a strategic level, in a tight spot where you really need to remove a character, Kalam may be better. Printed abilities usually are, but since matching scores is a huge part of this game's goals, "soldier spam" is actually more likely to be viable. This even persists when you take Kalam's Adaptive trait into account: he can switch places, but I can put 2 soldiers down at 2 locations each, "copying" Adaptive, and still saving 2 authority. It's going to cost me almost my entire hand (but so will Kalam), but I get to draw 5 cards next turn, anyway

Finally, interactivity.
Most cards refer to 'you', 'yours', 'cards you control'. If this is intended as a co-operative game, why is there no 'you and any other players draw 1 card', 'all sappers', or even: 'the next player to play a card'...

P.S.: Ready and Expend are awesome, but somewhat dangerous terms. Wizards of the Coast is very, very protective of the 'tap' mechanic (aka turning a card sidewise to indicate its use), which this is. Iirc, they've gone to court over it and won, too, several times. If you intend to publish the game at some point, you might want to check into this and see whether or not you might get sued - other games (L5R's "bowing" and "straightening" for example) use it too, but it might be they're licensed or asked for permission or something. Not saying it will happen, but better safe than sorry .

[JLV]

Jesus. That's why Tapper makes fantastic mafia games.

I'll take a look at these when I have a minute.

[LaymanK]

We just did the first 2 person play test. Stay tuned here and at our website for some updates and tweaks over the next couple of days.

www.cheekydingo.com

[Deck of Dragons]

I love the fact that it is co-op which means easily solo-able.

Btw, when you get the game fully playtested, you can print it professionally very easily for yourself. I'd never post it up to make money because Steve or his Lawyers will have to come after you to protect their IP.

Anyway, you can use Artscow to print custom decks of cards. With coupons a 54 card deck will cost you anywhere from $5-$10 shipped from China. I've done this many times for boardgame mods and it is awesome. But this is for much later after the game is play-tested and the art and layouts look much better.

[LaymanK]

Deck of Dragons, on 09 May 2012 - 01:32 PM, said:

I love the fact that it is co-op which means easily solo-able.

Should we continue into other editions of this game, there might be scenarios where it's not co-op, but the idea is that it will predominantly remain that way so that solo play is viable.

Btw, when you get the game fully playtested, you can print it professionally very easily for yourself. I'd never post it up to make money because Steve or his Lawyers will have to come after you to protect their IP.

Once we have solidified this game we will present it to Mr. Erkson and Esselmont and see if we can work out a licensing agreement. Failing that, it'll just be a free print-and_play game for fans.

Anyway, you can use Artscow to print custom decks of cards. With coupons a 54 card deck will cost you anywhere from $5-$10 shipped from China. I've done this many times for boardgame mods and it is awesome. But this is for much later after the game is play-tested and the art and layouts look much better.

We had not used Artscow before, definitely gonna look into that. Thank you for the reference.