Suggestion for Clarifying Boost/Drawback and Keep/Trait In Game

I started to post this into the Tutorial discussion, but I didn't want to sidetrack that thread with a (relatively) unrelated discussion. Plus, I felt it deserved it's own discussion thread.

Right now I feel that the Boost/Drawback and Keep/Trait system is a bit of a jumble. Not the functional part of it, but the indicative part of it. It's clear Boost/Drawback color basically indicates positive and negative inherent effects, so to speak. However, the Keep (do not discard) and Trait (must play) keywords are not straight-forward in indicating that they are, in essence, dichotomous mechanics with regards to Boosts/Drawbacks.

For example, take Firestarter. It is a Trait, so it is played immediately - fine. However, it does not stay in your hand as the Keep keyword would indicate. Yes, Firestarter has an ongoing effect that is not removed when triggered. However, we already have a keyword for that - Duration (a keyword Firestarter also has). Compare Firestarter to Fire Spray in effect - both attach to the target for an ongoing effect, and subsequently both have the Duration keyword. So why does Firestarter have Keep, which is not only redundant but not actually indicative of what it does compared to a card like Jump Back.

My solution would be to remove the Keep keyword from all cards with the Trait keyword. With regards to mechanics, they are effective opposite ways of handling Boosts and Drawbacks. Keep cards stay in the hand with all that entails. Trait cards must be played and attach, with all that entails. A Boost could be a Keep card or a Trait, but not both. Basically the whole scheme breaks down into Boost/Keep (Quick Reactions), Boost/Trait (Firestarter), Drawback/Keep (Arcane Feedback), and Drawback/Trait (Vulnerable).

Functionally, this is already how the game seems to work as a player, though I obviously can't speak for code behind the scenes. Still, it seems like a relatively simple (if onerous) change that would go a long way towards improving the clarity of the system.

 

Since the keep is on the effect part not the card part i would say that it makes sense. If nothing else this will allow them to make one charge buffs later on which i would find interesting. Your point is offcourse just as valid as mine so remember that this is just my opinion.

 

I think this can be made even better by eliminating the reaction box altogether.

All the non-trait attachments in my collection -- and some attaching traits, e.g. Blind Rage -- just have a regular "active" box with the attachment explained and no "Keep." Compare, for instance, Bad Luck: "Whenever target rolls a die" describes something that happens each time while the attachment remains in effect. (Some cards/keywords use "when," I like "whenever" for this sort of thing, but I really prefer consistency.)

LightPhoenix astutely brings up the example of Jump Back, which has action and reaction boxes that both activate from the hand and do separate things. (Thematically related, but separate.) Currently, there is no visual distinction between that situation and something like Firestarter that also has both kinds of boxes but basically just one usage.

Like Wozarg, I was thinking of future cards which might attach and only take effect once, and Keep might be a method of distinguishing that. But in that case Keep would need to be applied consistently to every current attachment; it would be better to leave it off and let "Duration" do that job. Single charge buffs could be expressed with language such as "On target's next situation A, perform B and discard this card."

 

Would it help to go the opposite way and add more terms, dividing up "Keep" descriptively? As in, "Keep in hand" or "Keep attached" as appropriate?

 

What if in the future they want a card that's attached but without the Keep part?

Say, a curse of some kind, with Duration 1 and says "when you play an attack, deals X damage to you"

Without the Keep word, it'll trigger once and disappear. But with what you suggest, this card can't exist, or it'll be forced to do paltry damage otherwise the enemy will just die after making 2-3 attacks.

Traits and Keep are not strictly required to be on Boost/Drawbacks only either, Armors have Keep, that one Bash that adds damage to other Bashs also have Keep, yet these are neither Boost nor Drawbacks, they also do not require being attached to your character.

I think you're just having trouble understanding Keep (which is just "this doesn't disappear after proc-ing) and Trait (must be played before non-traits)

 

My post was mainly replying to what Phoenix post originally :x

Anyway, the idea of all attach cards having duration is just what we've seen so far, forcibly making all attachments require duration would just kill off potential for permanent attachment (which can still be bumped off with the 3 attach limits) which you agree to this one being possible.

Between the attach being a keyword in and of itself as well as having a few rules attached to attachments (3 limit), I don't think making another keyword to split between Keep in Hand and Keep Attached really help with 'clarifying' things, more so when the current Keep is doing the same job for both

If you consider Keep as "it stays where it is" rather than whatever you think it was before, then there's no problem using Keep on any effect.

And Burning/Frenzy/Encumber,etc are keywords on their own so they have their own rule attached without needing Keep to also be stated.

 

Okay, so for the first time last night I saw traits that had not yet been played reacting out of a mob's hand; namely, I played first in the round and dsicovered that some Yellow Puddings were Vulnerable even though the trait had not yet been attached. This forces me to reconsider some things.

First, it directly answers LightPhoenix's original complaint about using the Keep keyword. Without it Vulnerable would have been discarded after the reaction, instead of sticking around as it is supposed to do. Second, it directly answers my complaint that trait cards don't need reaction boxes because this is may be an intended, if esoteric, part of play.*

So, if this intended, we can ask whether it is good for the game. Unless they have plans for cards that somehow use this feature, I still think not. You can't really plan for an unplayed trait to be held for any length of time, so how can you exploit it? Better to simplify the matter and get rid of reaction boxes on trait cards. (If it is not intended, that's an even better argument for changing the attach/react setup.)

I have two examples where things go wrong in the current setup. 1) Playing around Festering Guts, Death Meld, and the like, is part and parcel of the tactics game. It feels unfair for the player to execute a plan, by all rights playing well, only to have that plan ruined by an invisible trait. Yes, blocks and armors are hidden until used, but traits are meant to be explicitly played. 2) You get multiple identical traits triggering. Mobs often draw more than one copy of a trait, or a trait that is already attached. I had an example this morning of using Chop against two Yellow Puddings: one suffered from both the Vulnerable already attached and a new one in hand, while the copy in hand also triggered for the second pudding. Then Gary played it to the second pudding and they would have only one extra damage each. The general rule is no identical copies of a card may attach and this violates that spirit.

*I say may be intended: Jon wrote

in response to a report about Festering Guts. But it seems to be the natural result of this dual attach/react setup.