How to distribute resource cards?

The second method that you mention is like MtG, while the first is similar to (though not identical to) Pokemon - i.e. each creature requires its own cards.

The MtG method works well if you wish to restrict the game to 1 draw per turn, and if you want a clear progression over time, as "lands" can only be acquired so fast, and thus limit the power of something that can be played early.

The alternate method does allow the possibility of expending one's resources in a single burst, playing down a large monster on turn one if they drew enough "food" for the initial play. However, this system overall is slower, because their "food" isn't re-usable. Overall, I feel that this style would be less predictable.

However...

I don't like either option...

Have you considered adding in some other mechanics to drive the game? Here are some ideas that you might consider (some of which will work better with what you've already proposed in the other thread).

1. A system where the more soldiers you have in play, the less money (or food... whatever) you have to play with each turn (because it takes money to keep your troops on the front). Games like Eclipse and Power Grid do this well. There could be alternate methods of acquiring money (such as controlling map locations) which could allow for a larger empire to hold out against smaller opponents, but overall it's a means to ensure that no one player gets a runaway victory (a la Risk, where winners get more powerful until it's a no-fun landslide).

2. Each card could be worth one money, and a player has to choose what they can afford from their hand based on their hand size. Perhaps hand sizes grow or shrink based on external factors.

3. Use a currency card system like Dominion, making you decide whether to deploy monsters or buy new currency cards to improve your economic output (this also allows for monsters that you've bought to re-appear in play regularly, and a "redraw your hand" mechanic could allow for the game to never get stale (with players just waiting for the right draw).

----Overall, take a moment to sketch out how you want the game to look on a whiteboard or similar, and think about what you want your players to feel as they play the game. Perhaps take a step back from your theme and ask yourself which mechanics you want to be core to your design. Don't just stick to what you're seen in CCGs, because honestly, they don't have the best mechanics in terms of keeping the game moving along (unless you spend hundreds of dollars on cards... but I won't go into that). Again, play more modern games, and constantly look for new mechanics being used there.

Hearthstone also simplified this a lot by taking the resource off of cards, and simply saying that every turn, you have mana equal to the round number (1 in the first round, 2 in the second, etc..., max. of 10). Doing so takes out the luck of the draw.

Using cards as resources (i.e. to play this card, you need to discard X other cards, regardless of what they are) is interesting, but not in a game where you build your deck a la MtG. If you spend lots of time building your deck and trash 3/4 of the cards, the building is much less interesting. However, if you draw from a common deck, it has the added benefit of mitigating bad draws, as you'll use most cards for currency anyway, so even bad cards are pretty good.

And once again, the question comes down to "why do you need costs to those cards?" If it's just "because Magic does it", try it without it. If it's to balance out inequity between cards, try balancing them. Give some of them conditions before they can be played. Maybe cost could be a delay before they come in, or in Action points, or in Life points. Each brings a different feel to the game, which can make your game stand out.

Look at other games...MtG had a variant where all the resource cards were in a separate deck...the player then chose whether or not they want to pull from the resource deck or the creature deck. Force of Will is a card game that took that mechanic and built a whole game out of it.

Thunderstone uses resources in a completely different way. Each card has a money value and each player, on their turn, must choose to go to the village (utilizing the money) or explore the dungeon (where the money is not used). Check out a review for it on YouTube.

Imperial Settlers on the other hand, uses wooden pieces to indicate resources. It's a great game, you should check it out.

Hope this helps.

Mana screw/flood is just going to be an issue if you have resources that you have to draw from the main deck. Like I said before, you could put it as a separate deck, but from the lack of response to my post, I get that it's not an idea you're planning to pursue.

Still, I tackled this issue when creating my game.

I just gave the maximum resources to the player on their turn. Let me explain.

My game is a sci-fi combat game where two motherships battle it out against each other. Instead of "accumulating" resources during the game (which just seems weird), I operated on the concept that every mothership has a core...and the core recharges every turn to its maximum.

What does this mean? In practical terms, if you have a max energy of 6, you can essentially bring out your biggest unit onto the battlefield on turn 1. But that also means you can bring out 2, 3-cost units or 6 1-cost units.

But is that bad? I say no it isn't.

For one, it gives the choice back to the player. Instead of preventing a player from playing a card due to resource deficiency, you give them the choice that they CAN and it gives FAR more choice for a player that can essentially use every card in their hand instead of limiting cards they can play until a certain turn.

Two, it actually forces you to design smarter. Instead of creating expansions that power-creep over time (a very bad side-effect of using accumulating resources), the designer is forced to work within a box; they must be able to balance the power of a 1 6-cost card and 6 1-cost cards...or 3 2-cost cards or a combination thereof.

Three, it's thematic. Who goes into battle weak and hopes to get stronger WHILE in battle? It doesn't make sense. You come in ready to rumble.

So instead of having a starting hand of cards where some to all of your hand can potentially NOT be played on turn 1, you can have it so a player can use ANY card on turn 1. Now the game is more about strategy and not luck-of-the-draw or top-decking or hoping the opponent gets mana starved/flooded. A victory due to those conditions is just weak and not satisfying.

Here's a link to a game review of my game: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Mc2GeUXdco

Many games try to fix mana screw/flood but don't realize that, in order to do that, you have to break the system and provide something completely different. That's my opinion and it worked out in my game.

Most likely, this won't be something you will implement in your game because it would require you to start back at square one.

What if food is a finite source and keeping your monsters depletes your food supply? Maybe you can kill your own monsters to add to the food supply.

I absolutely believe in this, however, in my interactions with game designers (specifically newly-declared ones), they are so married to their design that the suggestion of starting over is almost offensive.

To be fair, I wasn't referring to you when I talked about starting over. I've had a lot of interaction with people on this forum and people in my game design classes and many of them think that starting over is like the ultimate insult. It's not.

I only offer suggestions that may help solve people's issues. Ultimately, it's up to the designer to implement or not implement the idea.

interesting idea, good luck with Your game

You could streamline this further and require players to discard X cards from their hand - of any type - to generate a given unit. The cost to bring that unit in play would be listed on the card. Playtesting and balancing would help determine the relative costs, similar to radioactivemouse's energy cost system.