mightymushroom . . . your signature line . . . I respectfully submit that this display may be too wide for some cards.
I fully understand the medium is not the message. A box flashing up the number I've rolled is good for me, given that I'm imagining the result of the roll, heroically blocking the orc's sword then spinning about to bury my axe in his skull. Showing the dice rolling makes no difference to that bit of mind play. It's the same way that I played D&D, we didn't need miniatures or maps, it was all a head game. Of course, each to his own and if the majority want some schmancy stuff, then I'm not going to complain.
Lot of time is being devoted to this dice thing, it really is an insignificant part of the game as a whole, but i will add my input. I enjoyed the way the Yu-Gi-Oh games on psp handled the dice rolling, the animation is less then a second, it looks neat, and the number is clear as soon as its done rolling. I tried looking for video of it but its one of those things not many people would take a video just for. Its animation rolls swiftly closer to the screen to block most of your view, but its duration is so short you get the information you need quickly and it disappears. Granted that game plays at a faster pace and it seems card hunter will be a little slower so it might not work as well for CH, but if thats all it was then it would suffice. Edit: oh and as far as the +'s argument goes, i would rather see an arrow going up or down so you know the roll needs to be higher than or less than the dice on the card. Honestly the less we add to the card the better, less is more and remember the cards need to be neat and clean. You ever seen a card game where the whole card from top to bottom is held up by information with no space? (Other then Yu-Gi-Oh )
I never meant to start an argument (or two). Thankfully it's civil! What SurgeonFish described is all I ever had in mind for dice rolling: less than second, just a little visual bonus. And since the icon on the card is a die, I would rather see a die roll than a plain announcement. Would you all feel mad at me if I said I am starting to lean the other direction about the '+'* (or '▲'*)? I posted my honest reaction when I first saw the card preview, but as time passes I feel that I judged too quickly. When a player sees a three-spotted die on the card and then rolls a three, the fact of success is obvious even if that player doesn't perfectly know the odds. Calculating the probability only matters when deck building, and even then one only needs the relative idea that a three icon is better than a five icon. If I could understand that negative armor class in Baldur's Gate is better protection, then it probably won't be too hard to figure out the dice on Card Hunter. * (c) 2011 mightymushroom symbology llc, a subsidiary of mightymushroom inc.
More information on the cards is not always better. I think we need to try to find the line between clarity and conciseness. Everyone will have to learn some conventions about what is represented on the cards, but too much use of iconography or icons that are too obscure is a problem. Race for the Galaxy is a good example of a game that I found overly opaque - despite trying many times, I could never get comfortable enough with the iconography to play the game. The "+" symbol is something that could go either way I think.
This is a really interesting point, which I think Skaff raised in his diary entry. Currently reaction cards are only revealed when they are successfully rolled for (something that would obviously be impossible in a physical game). However, I'm leaning towards always revealing them. The die rolling (which, by the way, is a very short animation) is an important dramatic moment in the game and concealing it from the opponent when you fail creates an oddly unbalanced drama.
Probably the better way to go about this, keeping the reaction cards hidden until after the die roll was made. Keep the die roll hidden from the opponent player unless the card succeeds, if it fails then its revealed and discarded(unless it stays in your hand for whatever reason), if it succeeds then its revealed and preforms its intended action. you still gain that strategic element of surprise (haha i blocked you) and wouldnt have to worry so much about it being revealed unless intentional reveal (keeping your opponent from playing power cards by taunting him with a block. Basically how they have it now, but i would preffer to reveal the card as it fails and is discarded to help the opposing player understand why your hand is getting one card smaller.
So, reaction cards are never discarded if you fail the roll. The idea is that they sit in your hand - if you roll high enough, they "trigger" and get played. After that, some of them are discarded and others are returned to your hand. But if they never trigger, they're not going to get played and so just stay in your hand. Currently, if you have a bunch of block cards in your hand, your opponent attacks you and you roll and fail for all your blocks, your opponent just won't see anything happen. Only you know that you failed all your rolls.
Have you played San Juan? Playing that first lets you learn how Race works without the iconography and makes Race much easier to learn. Of course, that totally indicates a problem, so I definitely agree with you on Race But when you know how to play... it is such a good game - problem is finding people who are willing to learn it and play it with you.
So in the current system when the dice don't fall your way, you would fail the blocks and take damage If you set the blocks to always reveal, the same rolls would fail the blocks and take damage reveal "a bunch" of cards, exposing them to effects like Brain Drain reveal by inference how many cards in hand are not blocks I wouldn't feel too badly if I have a single block card revealed; after all, it's still in my hand protecting me. (Plus I'm trying to do the same on my turn.) But the thought that a basic Stab could lead to a sneak peek of my entire hand is rather discouraging. The preview for Brain Drain said that some cards reveal the opponent's hand -- I'm assuming you didn't mean ordinary attacks!
Yeah, that's a good point and that's why the cards don't get revealed at the moment. One problem is that you only ever see the computer rolling for cards... and making it. It can lead to a feeling that the rolling is a bit biased.
Armor news y'all: Also, lots of great info on the entire reaction system--here's my quick reactions on reactions: I like how the distinction between armor and shields plays in with backstabbing--my suspicion is that some attack cards might also hold damage bonuses being performed while backstabbing (or at least I think it would be interesting if they did) The Armor # vs die # will make for some interesting decisions--do I go with a reliable -1 or -2 off the damage, or fill my deck with hardier armors with lower die probabilities? I suppose a lot of that will run contra to how hard-hitting the foes are, because the die probabilities remain constant, while the % of damage absorbed as a factor of your opponent varies with their total damage output (ie: blocking 2 damage from a foe that averages 6 damage a hit vs a foe that only can muster out 3) In that same vein, will there be any armor or shields which always work? Or... can die rolls be manipulated? Even +/-1 in a d6 system would make some very interesting changes in probability. The discussion of hand knowledge has been covered in some pretty interesting angles in this thread, and I'll be interested to see how a strong discard strategy will play out if your opponent can learn what most of your hand is comprised of pretty quickly by hitting them with an attack. On the flip side of a discard strategy, I wonder what a handful of reactive cards will do to drawing through decks--I like how the block card acts as a cantrip, but I also wonder how many players will constantly keep around a reactive card "in case I need it" over a more advantageous play of running through your deck. Or maybe it really is more advantageous to keep a defensive style, and I play too much aggro!
This reminds me, would the opponent be able to view the discard pile like in other card games? I know that we can only have 2 cards in our hand at the end of a turn so it would be interesting to be able to float through their discard pile to get a heads up to whats in their deck, or is it possible that the discard gets automatically drafted back into the deck? (how many times have i said "interesting" and "would" in this forum lol)
I noticed one small flaw in the diary: it never explicitly stated that Armor cards only activate on a successful die roll, just like Block cards do. It's easy enough to figure it out from the die graphic on the card (4+) and the second bullet point in the text (which speaks about the "50% chance" of success from this 4+ card), but it means that this received no discussion. . . . And said discussion would involve the above, as this dice-rolling system apparently means you (the attacker) will always be guessing. Can you safely say "Ah ha, none of those cards are Blocks or Armor, so it's time to unleash my bigger Attacks"? Nope! Randomness rears its head again. Which I think makes a nice design. Also, yay, a gray card. Gray is in the game. Still holding out on yellow! Edited P.S.: Also also, we finally see that lower right-hand box. There apparently is room for two icons in it, and one is the "return to hand" icon. Alright, next?
Throwing out an idea, perhaps the wrong player is rolling? I'd think it is more common in RPG's for the actor to roll for success than for the target to roll for defense. 1. Switch the die rolling trigger to the "attacking" card - since this has to be played to start the sequence, a die roll will be visible to all.2. In our hypothetical scenario where the defender holds multiple blocks, several cases could happena. The attack fails at the first block. That card is revealed and discarded (barring any special text). The rest of the hand remains a mystery.b. The attack gets past some block(s) but fails eventually. Only the die roll for the fail is shown, block card revealed, etc. Attacker doesn't learn cards he/she never triggered.c. The attack succeeds in spite of multiple blocks. The most recent die roll is shown, the defender takes damage. Attacker knows he/she succeeded, but is limited to a guess at the potential for defense cards: rolling a six could mean anything, succeeding with a one likely means a hand void of blocks. In any case, specific cards are not revealed until used.(The info value of the most recent die roll depends somewhat on the order in which blocks are tested.)3. Everybody sees (one of) the die rolls, but only the defender can be certain what cards remain. Although this has the serious negative of a lot more dice being rolled, many without need, it does try to strike a balance between seeing game actions take place, rewarding probing strikes as a tactic, and keeping the cards concealed until played. I also don't know how well this change might fit with the presentation of other types of cards that can use die rolls. We could end up with a dual symbology where sometimes a high roll is good for you and sometimes for your opponent; the distinction between 'action' and 'reaction' is more important than previously. Alternative scenario: Attacker rolls only when block cards are present. Like c, some knowledge is revealed by the fact of rolling, yet specific details are preserved. Again, I would only display one roll even when multiple blocks are tested. Edit: Alternative #2: Keep the current system, but show the defender's die roll. If you see a representative sample the process won't feel so unfair, and discerning the presence of reactive cards without knowing the details may make the attacker a bit more cautious, to the defender's advantage. Both sides gain a little something, tactically.
Oh yes, the very same. The most information on a small counter ever - I have played games of ASL that have almost reduced strong men to tears trying to get to grips with what all of the numbers, circles, asterisks etc., etc. on one AFV counter means.
I like the way that armour doesn't make you harder to hit, but reduces damage. This fuelled many D&D vs Runequest combat debates back in the day.
Seriously. I never got how clunking around in heavy armor suddenly made 100% impervious to some attacks (like I completely dodged them), and 100% venerable to all others. The Armor # + Die roll X sort of hits a sweet spot for me.
