Skip to Content
 

Updated rules for ESPERS card game.

13 replies [Last post]
Mon, 08/22/2016 - 02:14
n1x012
n1x012's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/11/2015

I've made some edits based on the feedback I've received and hopefully I've made it a bit more comprehensible. Here's the updated rulesheet for my playtest version of "ESPERS", a card game depicting a battle of telekinetic powers and extrasensory perception. Please give it a look, offer a suggestion, rip it apart, or steer me in the right direction. It's 2 pages with images (one sheet), so it's a quick read.
Link here: http://docdro.id/vIgxCAL

By the way, this is not a TCG, rather a 2 player card game. The card list is still evolving, but I can throw it on here later. My idea is to have 2 preconstructed "beginner" decks and a collection of "advanced" cards to upgrade the player's decks after getting the hang of the game, all in a small package.

Top
Mon, 08/22/2016 - 07:56
#1
stevebarkeruk
stevebarkeruk's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/26/2008
Two things

The issues that stand out to me are:

1) "if you are unable to draw a card when required to do so, you lose the game". I guess this means you never get to reshuffle your discarded cards? Given that each player always has exactly 30 cards, you might want to make this a little clearer by saying "if you are required to draw a card but your deck is exhausted you lose the game". As it stands, there's nothing that explicitly states the deck is not reshuffled, and your rule could be interpreted to mean there are cards that remove other cards from the game, for example.

2) The opportunity thing still bothers me. What if I've played all 6 cards in this phase and you've played all 6 as well so there's a sequence of 12 to work through and by the time we hit card 7 or 8 we can't remember the order they were played? What if, in that circumstance, I think it was card A and you think it was card B? Card A gives me a big advantage as well and you refuse to accept my memory of the order so the game grinds to a halt as we argue. Maybe play them in a literal, partially-overlapping stack so it's clear who played each card and the order they played them in?

Top
Mon, 08/22/2016 - 09:58
#2
n1x012
n1x012's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/11/2015
1) There are cards that

1) There are cards that reshuffle cards from discard back to the deck. I think I might like your phrasing, though.

2) in playtesting, players have naturally laid the cards down with a slight overlap, but I'm not sure exactly how to write "pay attention!" into the rules.
In certain formats of MtG, occasions of "counter wars" crop up a bit (also, a mechanic called storm, which counts every spell on the "stack"). I think players naturally pay attention to what they're doing without being explicitly being told to.

Top
Mon, 08/22/2016 - 11:56
#3
Squinshee
Squinshee's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/17/2012
It's hard for me to glean

It's hard for me to glean from the rules how games play out. What's the core engagement of ESPERS? All I see is variations of damage and card draw.

Top
Mon, 08/22/2016 - 13:15
#4
n1x012
n1x012's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/11/2015
There's direct damage,

There's direct damage, "damaging the deck"(discarding off the top of the deck), "counters" (canceling cards), redirection cards, and card draw/ deck manipulation (searching specific cards from deck or discard) so far. Each card can do 3 separate actions. Well, most can. Some cards have only 2. It's a quick game, maybe 10 min per round. In that time both your Psi points and your deck are resources you have to manage and keep careful track of, since not only is your opponent putting you on a clock, but you are putting yourself on one too by drawing and filtering your deck.

Top
Mon, 08/22/2016 - 14:15
#5
Masacroso
Offline
Joined: 05/05/2014
A point of view from a

A point of view from a non-english speaker: I think that you can just write "hand" instead of "opening hand" for the Mulligan, I think it will work slightly better.

After you can says that the first Mulligan of a player is free and any other after have a cost of 1 PSI. I think that in this way the rules are easier to get.

I dont understand clearly "shuffle it away", I think that you are saying that people can discard their hand in the deck, shuffle the deck and take another hand? Or we just discard the hand and take another one from the remaining deck?

I understand all the other rules but I think that they can be expressed in a better way. What you are doing is stacking cards where the player that start the turn (active player) can continue playing cards no matter if they are answered or not.

Another thing that is not completely clear is the mechanic of playing cards when they are resolved. When a card is resolved the owner can play and resolve as many cards as he wants, right? And after this we continue resolving the stack?

Another question: if you declared that your turn is ending and the opponent play a card, you can or you cannot answer this card with another one? I think that you cant because you declared your turn is ending, but it is not completely clear.

All the other things are clear. The mechanic seems very active, it is interesting.

Top
Mon, 08/22/2016 - 14:39
#6
n1x012
n1x012's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/11/2015
I originally just wrote

I originally just wrote "mulligan", but another user suggested that some people might not be familiar with the term., so I broadened it. It does feel a little clunky still...

It should be changed to something like, "shuffle it back into your deck and draw a new hand...", probably.

The basic rule of thumb is; if you play a card, the other player may play a card. So, if your opponent plays a card, then you may play a card.
If a card that you played resolves, you may play a card. Same for the opponent.

I'm still trying to see from the perspective of people unfamiliar with "stacks".

Top
Mon, 08/22/2016 - 15:35
#7
n1x012
n1x012's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/11/2015
I've just realized that I

I've just realized that I neglected to ever mention that you cannot respond to a card with a PK card. I'm begging to feel like I should rewrite it all from scratch rather than mend it, piece by piece.

Top
Mon, 08/22/2016 - 16:08
#8
Masacroso
Offline
Joined: 05/05/2014
n1x012 wrote:I've just

n1x012 wrote:
I've just realized that I neglected to ever mention that you cannot respond to a card with a PK card. I'm begging to feel like I should rewrite it all from scratch rather than mend it, piece by piece.

It seems that your rules, as they are written, are a bit redundant in some points (if my interpretation is correct) and obscure in other places. By example: if you are the active player you can play as many cards as you want, stacking them in a pile, right?

The other player can choose, anytime you play a card, answer with a card or not. Then if it is the same action to play a card as an answer or not then you dont need to define the cards played by the active player as a kind of answer of the play of some card by the opponent because you are free to play cards independently of the actions of your opponent, right?

Example: Im the active player, I play card A, my opponent pass to answer the card A. Then I continue the active phase: I play card B, stacking over A (right?) but this time my opponent choose to answer this card playing his card C, stacking it over the card B (maybe with a turn of 90 degree so we can know what player played what in the stack).

Etc. Then after active player says his turn is ending and the opponent can choose to play another card (or not).

After comes the phase for resolve the stack, right? Then when some card is resolved the owner can choose to play (and immediately resolve?) any amount of playable cards from his hand.

Etc. And for each kind of action, being the active player or the opponent, a specific kind of card can be used (PK or impulse or immediate cards).

Top
Mon, 08/22/2016 - 17:22
#9
n1x012
n1x012's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/11/2015
Masacroso wrote: Example: Im

Masacroso wrote:

Example: Im the active player, I play card A, my opponent pass to answer the card A. Then I continue the active phase: I play card B, stacking over A (right?) but this time my opponent choose to answer this card playing his card C, stacking it over the card B (maybe with a turn of 90 degree so we can know what player played what in the stack).

Not quite. They way it's written currently states:
"Whenever a player plays a card, before it’s effect takes place, they must pass the Opportunity to play a card to the other player. This process repeats until neither player chooses to play any more cards.
After which, the cards begin to resolve from the latest one placed down to the earliest."

What I'm attempting to say here is that, If you play a card (A) and your opponent chooses not to respond, the card (A) then resolves before you have Opportunity again.

From the current rules: "As each card resolves, its owner gains the Opportunity to play a card once more and may play additional cards if they wish."

It does seem a little convoluted as it's written.

Top
Mon, 08/22/2016 - 18:26
#10
Masacroso
Offline
Joined: 05/05/2014
I had an idea reading this

I had an idea reading this thread, not just useful for this game, just for any game.

Instead of writing the rules we can draw a diagram with the choices in a turn, like a computer program or the diagram of a machine.

Something like this: flowchart.

I will try to design some diagram to my games... I think it make things very clear. Of course this is a lot more work than just writing the rules but I think it is interesting.

Top
Mon, 08/22/2016 - 18:31
#11
n1x012
n1x012's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/11/2015
That's not a bad idea!

That's not a bad idea!

Top
Mon, 08/22/2016 - 18:40
#12
Masacroso
Offline
Joined: 05/05/2014
n1x012 wrote:That's not a bad

n1x012 wrote:
That's not a bad idea!

Im not the first thinking this. Just search in google or any other search engine images for "flowchart card game".

Top
Mon, 08/22/2016 - 19:53
#13
n1x012
n1x012's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/11/2015
Actually, this seems more

Actually, this seems more difficult that I thought...

Top
Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut