Why Whirlwind is bad for the game.

CH is a card game. Luck and randomness are a huge part of it. I don't believe positioning should be exempt from the craziness that affects the other aspects. Deck building and skill are really the most important elements, but people shouldn't get too comfortable. There should be things that unexpectedly blow up in your face once in a while, including some you may need to swap out a favorite item or two to guard against.

As for "That Map", either the designer didn't consider WW(E), or it's working as intended.

 

I see this argument often when people are talking about luck in CCG's. To me it makes no sense.

Card games like Card Hunter are already heavily luck-based because you draw cards, and therefore have both good and bad draws based on luck. I don't see the logic in adding to this problem by designing cards that make it even more luck based. I mean what's the point in that? I would imagine that most people want Card Hunter to be a test of skill, not luck.

It's perfectly possible to design a card game that has cards whose effect is 0% luck based. And this card game would not be boring because it has less luck involved, on the contrary, it would be more fun because skill would have a more important role, and luck would still play a big part (draw). There are no unwritten rules that you absolutely have to add cards like WW/WWE in a card game just because it's a card game. It reminds me of someone on the forums said that Card Hunter has to have overpowered cards because its name is Card Hunter. Apparently without overpowered cards, nothing would make sense.

If I had my way, WW/WWE in their current form would be gone in a heartbeat. I would also remove all the dice checks from all the armor so that they all become "reliable" (with naturally some other major changes as well to make them balanced). I can see blocks failing (dice roll) if your character fails to block the incoming hammer, but how exactly do you fail to wear an armor made out of steel and take full damage? But that's another story..

 

Armor has weak points which it does not protect. Or maybe the armor in question are not full suits of armor covering the entire body. As a result, certain blows to the unprotected portion of the body cause full damage.

Not that this has to do with anything. Carry on.

 

I get that, but if you have an armor that does absolutely nothing about half the time, maybe you should talk to the person who made that armor? If this was indeed a case of weak points in armor, the chance of failure in most armors should be 1 in 6 if it was done in a more realistic way, not the roughly 50/50 we currently have with most armors. I mean how many freaking weak points can an armor have? I think that the only way to fully penetrate an armor should be damage type Penetrating because theme-wise it means that you are able to find those weak points in the armor that regular blows do not find.

This is off-topic of course but it kind of touches the same idea of getting rid of all the unnecessary luck-based things we have.

 

That thing about armor needing a roll to save from damage is a much bigger luck thing then WW(E).
You should start another thread about that SLG.

Back to WW(E). In the campaign it is a real nice card to use once in a a while. Either when you got cornered, to possibly get a long distance enemy closer or just for kicks.
The grief this card is causing some people comes only from MP games. I can still not see why a player should not be able to try their luck in a calculated way.
If there are maps that make this card to powerful then thats something different.

 

Believe it or not, I've picked up on that. Some people will share your point of view and some won't. I don't. I enjoy some games that are based entirely upon skill. Card Hunter isn't in that category, and I don't believe it was intended to be. Compared to 'ordinary' card games, it feels more like Crazy Eights than Bid Whist. I'm not sure why I like it, but I do. It's just fun.

A few tweaks are fine, but I hope it's nothing that changes the basic character of the game.

 

Awww, I like the dice checks. Adds some more randomness to the game. You wouldn't play D&D without dice, would you?

 

When someone uses WW and tells me I got lucky with the placements....the irony

 

That's a good point. I think people usually (and I definitely) forget that different people look different things from a game. Others want games like CH to be intense strategy battles, while others look for something more casual and light-hearted, and there's really no correct answer to which way is better. While I don't like the randomness of WW, someone else might like the craziness it provides, and we're both right.

I don't know how D&D has evolved during the last few years, but when I played it, you threw the dice while attacking, not while defending. Your characters armor improved you Armor Class, and whether or not you got hit depended on the skills of the attacker. In D&D armors don't suddenly stop working half the time like they do in CH

 

This is effectively the same mechanic. Whether you make the static roll defense or attack is merely semantic (and indeed, there are D&D houserules listed in the D&D books to play it either way). The math is the same either way, save that the die roller has an 0.5 advantage (because the average of a d20 roll is 10.5, not 10).

In any case, there's nothing remotely like Whirlwind's level of silly randomness in all of D&D's myriad supplements, as far as I know. As such, this conversation is a tad off-topic.