The Supers CCG - Duelist 1st!

[Doug Ruff]

Nate (and Lee), thanks for the feedback-on-feedback. As it's beeen mentioned in this thread and is publishing related, I'd like to comment on target audience here. Hope that's OK.

Nate, I agree about the tournament/cartoon thing. If you've got a target, it isn't MTG or [insert name of kids cartoon here].

However, there's a substantial (if smaller) pick-up-and play card game market. If the rate at which Atlas are churning out expansions is anything to go by, Atlas appear to be doing very well with Dungeoneer, for example. I'd also look at Button Men as an example of how a game can have a low number of components, yet generate fast, tactical play.

I think that this is the sort of game that will sell to someone because they can take it home and play with their friends. Hence the factory set idea. Now, if you can set things up so that the players all want their own cards so that they can customise their heroes from all of the available powers, then you may sell multiple factory sets and/or expansions to the same play group.

[daMoose_Neo]

Spoiler list, as promised: http://www.neoproductions.net/spoiler.htm

The factory set really isn't a bad idea and I'm crunching the numbers on it as we speak, certainly feasable from the looks of things.

[Veritas Games]

DJ, my partner on the project, isn't that keen on your suggestions either, primarily because Supers isn't intended to be all that tactical- its beatdown, pure and simple.

It's largely beatdown with my suggestions as well.  Very limited tactics even then.  With your version, as Doug and I have both noted: almost no tactics at all.  The original game rules make the game swing from either totally random to incredibly deterministic, depending on how the cards fall.  But players have relatively little say over the outcome of the game.

I honestly think you won't have repeat customers without a deeper game, Nate.  Doug was concerned about this too.  And we're both sympathetic to your cause.  We're hardly antagonistic either to you, your game, or your co-op idea.

I have yet to hear any strong reason why you don't want deeper tactics.  The game practically plays itself according to your basic rules.

I know what a much more extreme tournament complexity level looks like.  I'm have designed a fully-fledged tournament supers CCG.  The Vs. system has about a 70 page comprehensive rulebook.  Mine is about 50 pages (without art and navigation).  Yours is 3-5 pages.  Even with 2-3 times the complexity, your game would still appeal primarily to casual gamers and would likely play very quickly.

Your game, even with a few more options, will still be playable in just a very few minutes.

I don't think you've suggested a particularly sound reason why you shouldn't have marginally more elaborate tactics.  I think replay value is the ONLY reason why any sane person would go into a co-op with you on this game.  If the game has limited replay value then nobody will want to design expansions, because there won't be many repeat customers.

I personally think even my modifications leave the game too shallow on tactics for my taste, but I prefer much more tactically deep games, even at the cost of more rules and more elaborate card design.

Casual gamers will find my game design mind boggling.  Tournament gamers, thus far, find it just about right.

I find, for instance, that the Vs. system is 90% about deck stacking and 10% about play (at least the handful of times I've played it).  In-game decisions are too obvious in that game.  Your game has even fewer tactical decisions to be made.

That said, to its credit, I actually think that your simpler game has much more flavor than the Vs. system.  You've got some good ideas for a nice simple game.  You need to complexify it slightly to have replay value and to have any reason to have a co-op at all.

Your mileage may and probably does vary.

[Veritas Games]

Here are my notes on your card list.  I won't bother saying that some of these cards look MUCH better than others.


<<Unavoidable>>
this was noted as "Cannot be prevented" in your rules

<<Blaster Weapon – Gadget
-Techie- 1: Deal 2 damage to an Airborne opponent, Ranged. 2: Deal 3 damage to an opposing player, Melee.
>>

A) Put an OR between these options; and
B) Reword it, removing any reference to Airborne opponents --

- Techie -
1: Deal 2 damage at Range; or
2: Deal 3 damage in Melee

<<Charge – Tactic
Pick an opposing player. If your Hit Points are fewer than theirs, they now have Hit Points equal to yours.
>>

All these types of card really need to be explicit:

A) if you can pick when they work or if they happen the instant they are revealed;

B) and they also need to be explicit that they are a single use card



<<Elastic Stretch – Power
-Mutant- Choose an opposing player's Gadget. You may use its ability this turn.
>>

Again, is this re-usable, do you have to activate it the second it is revealed, etc.  My version of the game is MUCH cleaner and clearer on this in that you can leave cards face down and activate them when you want to.

<<Energy Blast – Power
-Mutant- 2: Deal 1 damage to an opposing player, Ranged. +1 to the damage if the player is a Techie, +1 to the damage if the player has a face up Gadget.
>>

Use the phrase "and another" if you mean these bonuses to stack.

<<Flight>>

Usable by Aliens only, who can already fly.  And it's unclear how this interacts with the Binding gadget.  If Binding pops up after this, does it counter Flight and the Alien's innate Airborne status?  If this comes up after Binding does the Alien then ignore Binding?

I'd say this is useless unless I hear more about it.

<<Fire Manipulation – Power
-Mutant- If Ice Manipulation is face up, it loses all abilities.>>

Define "it" -- this card or that card.  Does it neutralize your opponent's Ice Manipulation or yours?


<<Ice Manipulation – Power
Choose a face up card that player has: They may not use it on their next turn. >>

See above.  Also, how come Fire Manipulation shuts down gadgets and Ice Manipulation shuts down any type of card?

<<Magnetic Manipulation – Power
-Mutant- 3: You may use an opposing player's Gadget of your choice this turn unless he or she takes 3 damage. Ranged. >>

Unless -- add "unless he chooses to take 3 damage instead".

<<
Power Gauntlets – Gadget
3: Deal 1 damage to an opposing for each face up Power Card they have, Melee. >>

Opponent, not opposing.

<<Power Suit – Gadget
-Techie- 1: Airborne until your next Refresh Step. 2: Deal 1 damage to an opposing player, Ranged. 3: -1 damage to the next attack against you. >>

Make this say, "your Super is Airborne"

Cards like this add more tactical choices because you have to do resource management.  More of your cards should be like this.

<<Shared Fate – Tactic
Each player takes 1 damage, Unavoidable.
>>

Is this a one time use tactic?  "Cannot be prevented" is the rulebook term for this, not unavoidable.

<<Sidekick – Tactic
When Sidekick is played, choose an opposing player's face-up Power or Tactic card. Sidekick has that ability. Sidekick may make a Basic Attack each turn.
>>

This is vastly superior to Shapeshift since it can copy any Power OR Tactic.  Also, is the Sidekick's attack INSTEAD OF or IN ADDITION TO your attack.

<<Sneak Attack – Tactic
Deal 1 damage to an opposing player, Unavoidable.>>

Why would you use Shared Fate instead of this?

<<Super Speed – Power
When Super Speed is played, you may make a second attack. All attacks cost 1 more to play this turn. Attacks without a cost instead cost 1 to play this turn. >>

This is probably broken.  The game already tends to have a first move advantage.

<<Techie – Super, 9 HP
Gadget abilities cost 1 less to play. >>

YOUR Gadget abilities...


<<Whirlwind – Power
When Whirlwind is played, place an opposing player's face-up card at the bottom of their deck. >>

Say, "of your choice".

<<Wings – Power
-Mutant- Your Super now has Airborne.
>>

Mutants already have two ways to fly, one a power, and one a gadget.  This is redundant but not shared by aliens or techies.

[daMoose_Neo]

Spoiler nit-picks- thanks ^_^
As I said, I think possibly more of your issue is with wording than with play.
"Unavoidable" more recently occured to myself as a short-hand way of marking damage that cannot be prevented or subtracted.

Blaster - Spacing on the card is same as it would be on Power Suit- its pretty clear in layout they are seperate abilities. I'm considering an overhaul on the card anywho, given that Techies are the only user of it.

Charge (and similar) - Can do two things without altering my structure, just notes: A notation that Tactics are played the instant they are flipped or simply note on the cards "This occurs when flipped. Use this ability once."

Flight - Me thinks you're misreading something- Flight is usable by both Alien & Mutant. Course, a notation on Bind that cards may later grant the ability to fly won't hurt anything.

Manipulations - Supposed to be a counteract to each other. Again, a quick notation to the card and tis solved.
As for Ice & Fire, I see it as more of a thematic difference- Fire/intense heat would slag a device or cause it to overheat- you can freeze almost ANYTHING in a block of Ice.
Magnetic is an issue of wording again, easily swapped yes.

Power Gauntlets - "Opposing Player" is what I was probably trying to type

Sidekick - In addition, so yes its quite superior.

Sneak Attack - For the same reasons people use a number of cards in a CGG. IE Shock, Lightning & Incinerate. Aliens could stand to use it the easiest, stocking up on quick one offs Mutants can't block, and even a Techie isn't at as much of a disadvantage. You're limited to one copy per card per draw pile.
If you chose to play that way, you get some quick blows in easy. Its also a thematic card - DJ was psyched about a scene from the latest Superman or Worlds Finest issues where Batman stood toe to toe with Darkseid who beat the shit out of him- Bats looked at him through a bloody swollen eye and said "You let us go, or I'll blow up the planet" - Shared Fate, Bats dies, Darksied dies.
Errata concession: Shared Fate, thematically even, may work out better with an option on itself to place face down instead of instantly.

Regarding Super Speed, for the most part it makes thing expensive enough its no worse than using a larger costing ability instead of two smaller ones.

Whirlwind & Techie - Slight phrasing differences, easily adjusted yes.

Wings - Why not? It may be slightly redundant with Flight, but you've even said theres more thematics to the game. If I want to make my own "Angel" instead of "Archangel", I have that choice~

Regarding a couple of the cards and their redundency, all games have a level of that. With Supers being restricted to one copy per deck, if you want to pull off some effects multiple times, you'll need similar cards. A couple are, as noted with the wings, more thematic, allowing you to create your hero. Do they defy gravity because they're from another world where gravity is weaker or do they take to the sky on wings of feathers or metal? Given a random pack, more options for similar effects means better chances of getting the effect (with or without a drawback). In a factory sealed pack, yes we do run into situations where its pointless to have one card distinctly better than another.  

I do thank you for the clarity you added to the rules book, but I have to say portions don't add as much stratagy as it appears, least wise not in as far as DJ and I played. It just added another layer of complexity over what was already established. THAT is why we're not keen on it- theres the extra step, the extra complexity (even though it is fairly slim), but to us its only appearant complexity and gives more of an illusion of tactical measures. The bulk of play still rests in your selections and luck of the draw. Maybe the illusion is more important than the reality~

And please, please please, understand this:Supers is NOT open for co-oping, it is a set of our (Myself and my partners) design. No one will co-op this unless they really really wanted to and we agreed with the suggestion. Think of the co-op offer as more d20- d20 has NO setting to it what so ever, save the magic system. Otherwise, its wildwest, heroes, fantasy, sci-fi, and theres even a modern SRD.
Aside from Supers, I have a pair of Mecha styled games (one that may or may not see print), a monster battling game, DJ has the aforementioned Element, which is a Wizards duel based on the tradtitional 4 elements. Complexity can be added and removed from the individual game at will. Element plays akin to a Rock-Paper-Scissors, with your effectiveness depending not only on your choices but your opponent's choice of elements as well. The Monster battling game will likely see more of that, as well as some more advanced strategies (I know A LOT about the Pokemon systems).

I really gotta break for dinner with the parents- gotta see them once in a while too ^_^

[Veritas Games]

I do thank you for the clarity you added to the rules book, but I have to say portions don't add as much stratagy as it appears, least wise not in as far as DJ and I played. It just added another layer of complexity over what was already established. THAT is why we're not keen on it- theres the extra step, the extra complexity (even though it is fairly slim), but to us its only appearant complexity and gives more of an illusion of tactical measures. The bulk of play still rests in your selections and luck of the draw. Maybe the illusion is more important than the reality~

Actually, it's not an illusion at all.  If you flip a Shapeshift up and there's nothing to copy then you just wasted the card.  If it's face down and you can use it when you want to then it is only a dud if the other player doesn't reveal a superpower.  If you have a City and the other player reveals Seismic Wave then maybe you don't flip it.  If you have Psi Blast and your opponent has a Sidekick, maybe you only flip Psi Blast for a finishing blow so your opponent doesn't get a copy of it.  Similarly, if your opponent has Psi Blast and you can manage to finish your opponent off with only 2 cards, then you choose not to reveal the other 3, so that Psi-Blast can never do it's full 5 points of damage.

These aren't illusory tactical elements.  These are actual, honest to goodness tactical options.

Without the option to leave cards unrevealed you'll give your opponent access to things you don't want him to get access to.

Also, the first time you play with a pair of "decks", keeping the cards face down is a method of keeping precious information from your opponent until it's too late for him to use the information.

[Veritas Games]

Element plays akin to a Rock-Paper-Scissors, with your effectiveness depending not only on your choices but your opponent's choice of elements as well.

That's what I sort of felt about Supers.  Games like that aren't going to generate a lot of repeat buys, Nate.

I haven't purchased it yet, but it looks like Final Twilight is a much deeper game of tactics.  Probably generates more repeat buys if the game play is any good.

Any minimal addition of strategy and/or tactics improves your chance of a repeat buy.  I don't think people will willingly spend money for a repeat buy on a game that is either too random or too deterministic, particularly not one that is Rock-Paper-Scissors played with 6 cards.

The problem isn't so much with your cards, but with the rules.  I tried playing then straight from hand (in a wholly non-random fashion), with the option of leaving them as unrevealed resources instead of having to leave them all face up.  The game required a fair bit more thought.  If it was deterministic (i.e., if there was a single best order to play the cards in), then it was less obvious.

On my first pass, I tried to keep your method of play as a subset of the rules I drafted.  I honestly think playing the cards from hand with a face down option for playing and then revealing resources is probably gonna offer you the most tactical options.

I can't say everyone will agree with me, but thus far, Doug, I, and my wife, all thought the game, as written, is too light on tactics.  I think you can keep your cards and tweak the way they are played and your game will have much more in the way of tactical thinking.

Scaling game difficulty is a real challenge.  My core playtesters love my CCG, but I _really_ think it's so complicated that it's going to chase away casual gamers.  I think it's tuned to be an excellent tournament game, but not a game for someone who is wanting to play for 15 minutes.  I've been tearing my hear out trying to find someway to simplify the game, or to create a basic game, that wasn't so free of options as to be boring.  That's the only way I'll generate repeat buys from casual gamers (unless I want a 100% tournament gamer market).

I think you are probably at the opposite end of the spectrum.  Your game alternately plays in such a random or deterministic fashion that you need to add some complexity to give some player control in some way in order to generate repeat buys.

If you have a lot of options, people will repeat buy in a booster format.  If you aren't going to make the game deeper, sell the game as a "factory set" and see if you can sell a larger quantity in the first instance.

Anyway, I'm getting redundant, so other than helping you on card wordings, I've said my piece, as have others.

Good luck on your game sales.

[Veritas Games]

OK, here's sort of an odd suggestion.  Go to the mutant and mark him as, "Add +1 to this character's cost to activate any Gadget effect that has a listed cost of 0 or higher."

Why?  Because techies have more complicated gadgets and will use more gadgets than mutants, and you should put the math burden on the guy who is playing few if any of these, not on the guy who is playing many of these all the time.  That's just good sense.  It's doubly good sense for the "Techie only" gadgets, since otherwise the techie has to subtract points on costs that only he can use anyway.

BTW -- the costs below (the Techie costs to use, effectively), are WAY too low on the blaster weapon.  These are the costs the Techie would have paid, as written, in your original draft of the spoiler list.


Then make the costs for Gadgets as follows (from the Techie's perspective, +1 for Mutants, and Aliens can't use 'em):

Blades – Gadget
2: Deal 2 Damage to an opposing player, Melee.

Shield – Gadget
-1 to damage to attacks against you. If you have Super Strength face-up, Shield also has --
"3: Deal 3 damage to opposing player, Ranged."

Power Gauntlets – Gadget
2: Deal 1 damage to an opposing for each face up Power Card they have, Melee.

Blaster Weapon – Gadget
-Techie-
0: Deal 2 damage to an Airborne opponent, Ranged.
1: Deal 3 damage to an opposing player, Melee.

Power Suit – Gadget
-Techie-
0: Airborne until your next Refresh Step.
1: Deal 1 damage to an opposing player, Ranged.
2: -1 damage to the next attack against you.



An alternate way to deal with this, is to keep the above costs on "Techie Only" gadgets, and increase the costs on the other 3 by 1 point, and then give the Techie the ability:

"Subtract 1 from the cost to activate any Gadget effect except one on a Gadget that is usable only by a Techie."

Again, this is a way to limit redundant and fairly useless math on Techie items.  I prefer the former solution however (putting the ability on Mutants) so that Techie players have to do ZERO math since they may play a bunch of gadgets.

[mangaocid]

Lee,
Hey, this is DJ, Nate's partner with supers/duelist. Sorry for my absence in this discussion, since I had some net issues.

I would like to say I do like SOME of your suggestions for Supers and POSSIBLY duelist. I'll bring some things up to nate today as suggestion.
For instance, what if the cards with no payment cost(instant effect on flip) come into play face down and can THEN be chosen at a later time to use? Would that clear up that issue?

I think what that allows is for a deeper tactical battle, ie CHARGE(life totals are the same). Plus it can clear up your issue with Psi blast.

I don't know if that's what you were going for or not. but Let me know if it hits the nail close at least?

As for Element - You'll have choices of what to flip, when to flip, and also the decks will consist of more cards. Overall, it's geared towards more strategy, less beat down. but I'll start a thread on that.

Any suggestions you've given thus far have been discussed, worked over, sweated upon, and run to death....so we ARE taking what you have to say and attempting to see it work.

Keep em comin!!

[Veritas Games]

For instance, what if the cards with no payment cost(instant effect on flip) come into play face down and can THEN be chosen at a later time to use? Would that clear up that issue?

Howdy, DJ.  Nice to meet you.

Let me start by saying that Nate said you guys accidentally misunderstood my suggestions and during your initial playtest you WERE NOT using my suggested rules.  For instance, I didn't say if you put something on the bottom of your draw pile that you draw again.  That's a somewhat clumsy mechanic, and is not what I wrote or intended.

Just to make sure that if you THINK you don't like an idea of mine, we should probably make sure that I wrote it up clearly and you intuited what I wrote clearly.

That said, if you now have a firmer grasp on my recommendations, here's what I have to say.

Having the option of having cards face down does 3 things:

1) hides info from your opponent during your first game with new deck configurations;

2) clears up problems with copies and other things that would otherwise fizzle without a target

3) adds tactical play by allowing you to NOT reveal cards that your opponent can abuse you with (like not revealing a City if your opponent has a Seismic Wave showing)

I think all these things are important.  Thus far, 4 people (ranging from hardcore gamers to non-gamers) have chimed in directly (Doug and I) or via me (from my playtests) to say that the game needs more tactics.  3 of us felt that my method of playing Resources ranged from superior to yours to minimally necessary to make the game work at all.

To keep you aware, of the two people I playtested with, one thought Supers was the single worst customizable card game he had ever played, and even my modifications didn't save the game for him.  The other person who tried it said without my rules there were almost no tactics at all, and that with them, tactics were limited but thought that Supers was primarily good to teach young kids to count, and so thought it would make a good kids game.

Another person said he would refuse to play any game where he didn't have some control over which cards went into play and got revealed.  He didn't even both playing.

The guy who played it and hated it has played my supers CCG plus almost every other supers CCG that has ever hit the market.  However, he's NOT a casual gamer, he's a really hardcore tournament gamer, and is not your target audience, really.  So, while I agree with some of his points, I think that you should take some of his criticisms with a grain of salt.

That said, at least everyone I've talked to seems to be decidedly against just feeding cards into play face up in a random order.  They'd prefer my method (at the very least) or would prefer to play the cards straight from hand.

I think the system has more promise that the other folks I talked to did, but I think the cards need to be:

A) Re-worded for clarity
B) Re-balanced in some cases

Nate seems kinda fast and lose about card wordings.  I think he wants the air of simplicity about the game.  Simple does not mean ambiguous.  I'd rather read a paragraph on a card (well, I'm visually impaired, so I'd like to be able to read well at all), and know what it means, than to read a sentence fragment and not understand what's what.

A common example is Crushing Blow: "+1 if airborne".  +1 if who is airborne?  Me?  You?

That's not so much a single card nitpick as a trend I noticed toward trying to make the cards sound simple, but actually giving rise to in-game complexities due to ambiguities.

And I think there needs to be more tactical play options.  But I think that the core idea of one-on-one fights with small decks is quite promising actually.  I almost don't view this type of game as a customizable card game (which it technically is), but as more of a pocket game.  Something to pass the time with when you have down time in other games or when having lunch at a con.

So, I'm far more upbeat about Supers than everyone else I've shown it to and talked about it with.

I don't know if that's what you were going for or not. but Let me know if it hits the nail close at least?

I think my method is unambiguous and includes charged cards as well as uncharged cards.  I think if I understood your reluctance better to just let people choose when to reveal cards then I might propose an alternate solution.

As for me, I want it to apply to all cards, sometimes I don't want Psi Blast copied by the other guy's Sidekick, so I play it face down and use it as a killing blow only.

As for Element - You'll have choices of what to flip, when to flip, and also the decks will consist of more cards. Overall, it's geared towards more strategy, less beat down. but I'll start a thread on that.

Good, I look forward to it.  I really wish you guys good luck on this endeavor, DJ.  I really do.

Nate has always seemed like a great guy, so I strongly support his attempts to further inroads into the indy CCG market.

I just wildly guessed at what Element was like when I wrote up the Duelist Rules.  It may not work for you at all.  I'll fix that once you post the Elements rules and some sample cards for my review.

BTW -- and I'll note this in another thread, I _STRONGLY_ recommend you call this system something other than "Duelist System".

You use a tapping type mechanic for resource usage, you have a customizable card game, etc.  I think Richard Garfield called his original system (of which Magic was originally intended to be one example of) the "Duelists System".  Magic has had a magazine called "The Duelist" and has a player's organization called "The Duelists Convocation".  You might be subject to being slapped with a trademark infringement lawsuit if you call your game "The Duelist System".

[Veritas Games]

BTW -- Nate expressed interest, but I can't remember if he responded re: my NDA, etc., but Nate had talked about reviewing my Supers CCG rulebook.  It's actually shorter than many other tournament CCG rulebooks, but at 50+ pages with the art and the index removed, it's still a healthy chunk.  After you guys stabilize your game a bit, you should go under NDA and look at mine.  It's gonna be a mass market game if we ever get our bloody art and character license signed.  We're dropping quite a chunk of change on the character license for 2 years, so we're talking a much bigger financial risk than what you and Nate are aiming for, I'm guessing.

My game's worst problem from the standpoint of casual gamers?  Complexity.  Tournament gamers love it.  Casual gamers say "it makes their head explode" even though they can pick it up pretty readily after a couple of games.

Just as I keep aiming at simplifying my game without losing flavor, you probably need to tweak your game up a notch or two on complexity while preserving flavor.

I'll look for the Elements thread, DJ and Nate.

My game lasts around an hour and sometimes has a team of 6 heroes fighting 3 villains, with up to 12+ guest stars intervening now and again.  It's got both strategic and tactical play, but it is 180 degrees aimed at the opposite target market you want to hit.  People who will like your game will hate mine, I suspect, or more likely, will just be puzzled by mine.

[Veritas Games]

If you re-download the system again you'll find that I've temporarily re-named it (per my warning above), and that I've added quite a few icon types to save some game text on cards, I've added a marginally better Cartouche example, and I've added some other new rules.

Pretty much look at any place with a graphic and read the surrounding text.

DJ seemed to want the ability to reveal any or all Resources simultaneously.  I added that option and some other stuff.

http://www.veritasgames.net/downloads/duelist_rules.pdf

I'll know if I've created you enough design space when you post a quick write-up of the Elements game.  But I think you can probably work within the design space I've created to design tons of characters and even new games, all without having to re-write a single word of the rules.  That's a sign of a co-opable rulebook that is suitable for licensing.

[mangaocid]

Well, Nate and I have determined and decided upon a possible new name for "Duelist"...."Pocket Games". As you stated before, it seems to be a pocket game, something to pass the time between other sessions...initially that is the goal for duelist, a pasttime as it were.

Element on the other hand, will be geared towards longer term gaming.

I like the idea of the icons, cuz it does clear some space on the card for less explanation...but I don't know how well it fits in the rulebook, because now we'd have to explain that as well. Our goal is to keep it simple and small so the player can take it with them easily, rules and all. That also helps us keep it inexpensive for us and the player.

I admit, the game is not by any means meant for long playability. It's meant to occupy time, to break up monotony. It's a game geared to A.D.D. infested gamers(like myself).

Nate I'm sure will read this as well...so I surely will know what his opinion on the icons is. really not a bad idea. I will have to actually read the rules later and get back to you on that as well, but I'm not sure a rules change is in the future. We're pretty satisfied as far as the rules go. As you have said before, the cards are what are throwing this system off so much.

We'll see what these minute changes do for the game. Thanks again!

[Veritas Games]

DJ, I just updated the rules (yes, again).  I added a game option called "Exchange" which lets you stack situational cards, but which let you occasionally, take one of those situational cards, ditch it, and get a new card.

To make this work, in Supers, you have to let people play with up to 6 cards.  There'll still be a limit of 5 in play.

The rules are at:

http://www.veritasgames.net/downloads/duelist_rules.pdf

For Supers I have a list of proposed cards and changes.  They really are designed to leverage the Cartouche system I came up with and the cards features quite a number of additional characters:

http://www.veritasgames.net/downloads/proposed_cards.txt

Those cards will need severe playtesting, and I fully anticipate costs getting bumped up or down a bit.

Note that I either used the new Exchange mechanic on situational cards OR I altered your initial card mechanics to make sure that few, if any cards, ever end up fully a dud.

Under your original rules, it is entirely possible to have a Deck like this in the game.  Say you are playing the Alien and your opponent is playing the Mutant.  The Alien's deck is, in order

Radiation Manipulation
Crushing Blow
City
Seismic Wave
Super Strength

The Mutant's deck, in order is:

Bind Device
Flight
Energy Bolt
Blades
Psi-Blast

Let's say that your opponent's first card is Bind Device.  Got it.

OK, so you draw Radiation Manipulation.  You don't even bother revealing it, because it won't get through your opponent's Damage Reduction.  You attack the Mutant but his Damage Reduction bounces your attack.  He attacks you, now that you are grounded, for one damage.  Alien: 9, Mutant: 8.

You draw crushing blow and sit there.  Let's say the Mutant draws Flight.  The net result is gonna be Alien: 8, Mutant 8.

You draw the City (with your modified wording).  You can't damage the Mutant, so you get no counters, so you don't bother to reveal it.  The Mutant blasts you for 3 with an Energy Bolt.  Alien: 5, Mutant: 8.

You draw Seismic Wave.  You can't hurt the Mutant in Melee, and there are no rubble counters in play.  But you add one to play.  He zaps you with Energy Bolt.  Alien: 2, Mutant: 8

You draw Super Strength.  Yeah!  You have one Rubble Counter in play.  You lob it at your opponent.  1 damage gets through!  You get creative and realize that since it won't do damage, activating Seismic Wave is not an attack. You use it to create another Rubble Counter. The Mutant zaps you again with Energy Bolt.  Alien: -1, Mutant: 7

This is sort of how my friend felt the other day -- Our game used different cards, but the cards could end up becoming duds so bloody often that nothing he tried could work at all without benefiting me more than him.

I'll try to help, but you guys need to identify any cards I propose and any cards you propose that have a high chance of being situational or going dead.

One thing that may be necessary may be to not have General Damage Reduction, but to have only Melee and Ranged damage Reduction, and to make sure that there's no way to stack two cards worth of damage reduction, or, if there is, then maybe it should be expensive.  Neither my rules nor my proposed card list for Supers goes this far, but this is a logical next step if damage isn't getting through.  What you don't want to do is mistakenly assume everyone will have damage reduction, because some types of characters won't have it.

Take a look at the tweaked rules and the proposed card list.  I'll look at Elements, DJ and Nate.

[Veritas Games]

I like the idea of the icons, cuz it does clear some space on the card for less explanation...but I don't know how well it fits in the rulebook, because now we'd have to explain that as well.

Actually, you don't.  You just think you do.  The rulebook needs to tell you how to conduct Usability Checks with the Cartouches, but that's a general rule.  You do NOT need to present the any list of specific Cartouches unless you really want to.  In fact, the system is intentionally designed to be expanded to deal with new characters.  Check out my proposed card list, and you'll see that there are lots of Cartouches and icons, and lots more characters and cards.  People will, in practice, ignore 90% of Cartouches in play, since you check them before you put them into your deck, in general.  Most of the time when they need to be aware of a Cartouche, it will be one on their own cards.  They don't need to know what a Cartouche stands for, just that it matches.  That's all.  It's a more extensible system than you had before.

Without a system like my Cartouche system, once you have more than 3 types of characters, you'll rapidly run out of space just listing who can play a card.