Ok, so I mentioned making a game called "Element". This game uses pieces of the "duelist system", creating an extended play version.(See the "Supers" thread for more information).

Instead of a character and 5 resources, you have a deck of up to 20 cards. Now, as opposed to playing each card as a resource, you can choose to hold the card in hand and play it as a resource later. There are also other opportunities in that you don't HAVE to play the card face up. If you hold it in hand tho, you pay a "casting cost" to place it face down.

The idea behind the game is the character is a mage of the element of your choice(fire, water, earth, air). The cards you use must be of that element. Spells you play are effected by the element you face(ie, water softens fire, wind feeds it). This adds a bit of strategy in itself. Plus, in this version, there will be ways to shift resources out of play, and to replace ones you don't need or want to use anymore.

Future sets will see new mages(void, night, day, whatever) and possibly creatures of the elements. Anybody got ideas? Feedback? I'm open....considering this game is in development, it can use some attention I'm sure. Any help will be much appreciated.

mangaocid wrote: Spells you play are effected by the element you face(ie, water softens fire, wind feeds it). This adds a bit of strategy in itself.

A) His own image (for personal spells) that only he can cast
B) His element of choice

You and Nate came up with was the notion of a beer and pretzels CCG with just a few cards. That is brilliant. Hands down a cool idea. But I doubt you and I would design the same thing. And so I don't know that we are going to get far discussing design.

I haven't playtested my design, but I jettisoned Nate's draft of Supers from my hard drive and came up with my own game that has a similar purpose, but often different implementation. I kept trying to convince you guys to change your game to include my designs, and instead just made my own design. That seemed simpler.

Of course things are similar in both games because we drew from similar sources (he borrowed, it seems, from Magic, but I borrowed instead from my own game Powerstorm and from the Vs. System).

Feel free to look at:

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

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

There are two links for you. My legal stuff is in the rules document.

I can't promise that those cards are playtested AT ALL. I built the game assuming multi-player play. I think this variety of game is too simple for deep tactics in one-on-one play. The warrior in my game is simple. The others have moderately complex card interactions that can be created if you know what you are doing.

Why discuss when you can see a suggested implementation?

I have 5 characters thus far. I'm designing dungeon monsters next.

Feel free to borrow ideas from my game. If you you use any verbatim text, just give a line of credit. If you want to go with the entire rules system for your games, drop me an email veritasgames AT aol DOT com.

mangaocid wrote:
Alrighty. I see what you mean lee. What do you think about having the second cartouche be a Complimentary element. It has to be an element that works best with that element, say fire with air. That will also allow creation of dual element cards(wildfire, tidal wave, etc)

I'll post a full response later, but know this...Element is MEANT to be more than what we did with Supers. Element is very easily NOT the supers. and as such, my goal is to bring that complexity and skill to the game. So don't feel I shut you down completely. Element is geared towards what you were suggesting, Supers was not.

With that said...let's rock and I'll read your rules and such and let you know what's up.

Sorry, maybe this discussion wasn't shut down. I felt the supers one was, and I thought Nate said you had at least a substantially similar core concept. Every person I talked to hated having no control over what was played, what was revealed, and how it was revealed.

That made me move toward making my own "small pack" game. Feel free to borrow text from it if you want. I support you and Nate, DJ, so if I can be of use, that's cool by me.

BTW -- I normally design more complex stuff. This is the simplest game I've designed. It's 8 pages long, which when printed in 6 point font (in the 4 pages per page setting) prints to 1 page, front and back. That's my target rules length. For a pocket game, that should be yours as well.

Alrighty, read the rules for "quick fight". I like the idea of the icons to identify cards to be used by characters, but what real point is there to the icon of the character themselves?

I don't plan on making cards character specific, so that one I can leave out, but I like the major and minor idea....major being the element of the mage type, minor being a complimentary.

Each turn, play one resource card a la VS(face down). You may after that step, then choose a card if you like to flip face up, paying it's cost if necessary(larger cards that trigger upon flipping need that).

Here are the phases for Element

1)Recharge Phase - All cards drained by you on your last turn are recharged during this phase only, unless cards otherwise state.

2)Resource Phase - Draw a card and place a resource face down into play.

3)Ready Phase - Play an non attack spells and abilities during this phase to prepare for combat.

4)Combat Phase - Make a single attack, either basic or using a spell or ability from your hand or resources.

5)Ready Phase 2 - see ready phase

6)End Phase - Life totals are checked at this point, Anyone with life below or equal to 0 is KO'd from the game. If there are no opponents left, you win. If all players are below zero, the player with the most life points closest to zero wins. Next player's turn

Another thing that I do like, is the exchange ability. But, I'd like to use the idea as more unplannable. Say, you don't like the card cuz you can't use it....it can go to the bottom of your deck and be replaced immediately by the top card of the deck(you may look before placing it face down, but not before placing the old resource at the bottom of the deck).

In Element, to drain means to "tap" a card as a payment, or for the spells effect, etc.

Also, an ability I plan to add to make it more interesting, the ability to play cards from your hand a la magic or vs. These cards then go to the discard pile and are no longer in play.

As far as other characters to come, not just mages, but elementals, dragons, fairies, etc....this will all expand on the ideas behind the game...and more elements themselves shall appear, based on a multitude of cultural beliefs.

The floor is open

mangaocid wrote:
I don't plan on making cards character specific, so that one I can leave out

Another thing that I do like, is the exchange ability. But, I'd like to use the idea as more unplannable.

Say, you don't like the card cuz you can't use it....it can go to the bottom of your deck and be replaced immediately by the top card of the deck(you may look before placing it face down, but not before placing the old resource at the bottom of the deck).

Also, an ability I plan to add to make it more interesting, the ability to play cards from your hand a la magic or vs. These cards then go to the discard pile and are no longer in play.

mangaocid wrote: 6)End Phase - Life totals are checked at this point, Anyone with life below or equal to 0 is KO'd from the game. If there are no opponents left, you win. If all players are below zero, the player with the most life points closest to zero wins. Next player's turn

you draw everything to hand, and then you can either play something directly from hand or play it as a resource. Just don't have some cards flipping off the top of the deck and others being played from hand.

The whole point of it is to be able to cycle through your deck after generating a minor power, or to cycle past an unusable or undesirable card. So the ability to control it is somewhat important. I wouldn't allow for it every turn in a game with a 5-6 card deck. Maybe in a deck with 20-30 cards that might not be horrible.

At this point, if you've got cards in hand you haven't talked about them. You haven't included rules for drawing an open hand, maximum hand size, deck size, etc. So I don't know how this game plays out.

I apologize for missing that, but at the same time, I did say that this was developmental.

I plan on having the player draw 5 for open hand, and one per turn...max of 5 in hand. Deck of 30 cards, possibly more depending on playtesting.

I don't have the cards layed out yet...still working them out.

mangaocid wrote: I apologize for missing that, but at the same time, I did say that this was developmental.

I plan on having the player draw 5 for open hand, and one per turn...max of 5 in hand. Deck of 30 cards, possibly more depending on playtesting.

I don't have the cards layed out yet...still working them out.

I'm not entirely decided on max resources....What would be your recommendation sir?

I'm thinking around 6....but I don't know for sure.

My good man, it depends on the power of your cards and how many can be Exchanged. It also depends on starting life points. If your damage calibration is such that people do 8-10 damage by the time they get their 5th resource then allowing for a 6th resource is sort of moot.

Also, if things cost 6 and you play 30 cards or less then every card in your deck that costs 5 or 6 has a higher chance of being dead in an early draw unless the card can be Exchanged.

So, my answer is -- it depends. It depends on:

* Starting Life Points
* Damage calibration
* Cost to activate effects

and a few other things. Arguably, you could have NO maximum resource count, hoping that the game will de facto end by the time people get their 6th card in play.

Keep in mind one thing -- if you don't have a deck MINIMUM then people will always play like 5 or 6 cards if that's all that it takes to finish off an opponent, DJ. So, in part it's going to be a giant balancing act.

If it takes 10 resources and 20 damage to finish off an opponent then people will play with 10 resources. If they can do it with 5, then they'll try to work with 5. Every card you require in their deck above the number minimally necessary to do the job will add some variety to the game and potentially increase chance (if every card is a "one per deck").

You need to build yourself 10 or so cards, pick a life point total, pick a damage calibration (and by that I mean how much it costs for a card to typically produce X damage or Y penetrating damage, etc.).

Quick note, then I'll reply more later.

Not limiting cards to one per deck....hopin for 3 per deck. Especially with the ability to Use 2 elements in the deck.

This thread has been inactive long enough...I had disappeared to GenCon so hadn't focused on this thread.

Element is still a work in progress. I have upped the minimum deck size to 40 cards. I'm also going to keep the hand size at 5, because I like the 5 card hand size...But I do think I'm modifying that to include that your hand be no more OR less than 5, so at the end of turn, you always end up with 5 cards.

Still thinking I'm not going to limit resource amount. I want to allow for a larger band of cool cards...god knows people like to win a game with a big close, or a great combo.

With that being said, I open the floor for criticism based on the entire thread.

The floor is open

DJ

Nobody is going to comment in any useful or lengthy fashion until you type up some rules and potentially until you come up with at least a few sample cards.  You are asking people to comment on potentially ever-changing vaporware.  Make some things concrete, codify them, and produce something specific to encourage very specific commentary.

Just my two cents.

Your mileage may vary.

Ok, first off let me state that I'm attempting to get feedback on the core concepts BEFORE making anything super concrete, so I appreciate that you refer to it as VAPORWARE, considering it WILL change.

But, I have created a quick rule set based on what is known SO FAR, that way anybody who is interested can give their opinion and assist in furthering the DEVELOPMENT of Element - CCG.

Those that are interested my download the rules here Http://www.angelfire.com/mi/Mangoacid/deej/Element_Rules_v1.doc any constructive criticism is more than welcome, and keep in mind, the game is still in developmental stages. assistance will be appreciated AND noted within credits in the final rules.

the floor is open

DJ

I apologize ... apparently that link will not work.

see if this will work

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/Mangoacid/deej/element.html

It took many attempts to download the document.  Something was wrong with the webspace, it seems.

General comments.

Put Major and Minor character distinctions in the SAME place on both types of characters, not in different places.  It's distracting to look for related pieces of information on different places on different cards.

You don't address what happens when STRENGTH = ARMOR in combat.  In fact, you don't list Strength and Armor (at least not as such) on either of the sample characters.

Your game plays like a simplified version of Magic the Gathering.  A lot like that, but with a Versus system style Resource Row.  You even list a bit of shared terminology: "Graveyard" is one name you list for the discard pile.  The primary one you list is "Burial Grounds".

You don't have a card diagram showing the anatomy of the card.

Also, you don't explain the Chinese characters in the corner of the card.

While this is simpler than Magic or the Vs. System, there's nothing here that makes me want to play this instead of Vs.  I think you need to work on a unique hook.  If you use that Cartouche system I came up with, that could start to be a cool hook, making every major character substantially different than every other.

Thanks lee! I dropped the ball on those things didn't I? Ok...I'm re uploading an image for the preview cards and also an updated rules set explaining a few things that I missed. There are also a few changes. I added some new stuff.

Replaced Places with "Inspirations" - These cards cover places, people and events known to the Major Character. They give bonuses to strength, armor, etc.

Added "Interference" - Labeled as "Interference X" where X is the cost. Player pays X to place that character into the attack in place of target character.

I also noticed that I never addressed that the Major Character may also attack, so I changed that.

You will also find a Card Diagram of the Minor Character.

Anything else?

The Floor is Open.

DJ

Forgot the link...
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/Mangoacid/deej/element.html

Say "Only one total major character (none in your deck)" for deck building.

You define “exert” only a ways after you’ve used it already.  Also, you fail to clearly explain Recharging.  I understand these myself, but they aren’t clear in the rules for people who haven’t talked to you before.

You really need to rewrite the Combat rules.  Don’t separate Major and Minor characters.  Treat them all the same.  Just give all Minor characters 1 Hit Point in exactly the same place you put the Hit Points for a Major Character.  Don't even say how many Hit Points Minor Characters have, just give them all 1 for now.  If you later decide to make a 2 HP Minor character you can.  Just say that if a Protector is reduced to 0 or fewer hit points that he's put in the Burial Ground and if your Major character is reduced to 0 or fewer Hit Points you lose.

You also don’t talk about how attackers and defenders are chosen to interact with each other (does the defender choose to defend or not – does the attacker choose who he attacks, etc.).  In this process CLEARLY explain Interference, it’s a little vague now.

Are all Protectors Minor Characters?  Are all Minor Characters Protectors?  If “yes” to both, then consolidate the terms.

Give the Major character’s a Strength and Armor score rating in exactly the same place Minor Characters get it.  Just list it as “2/0”.  Don’t box yourself into a corner saying that all the Major characters are the same either.  Just pick the values and put them on the card.

Explain “damage reduction”.

Can I play a Minor Character in the Resource Row?  If so, can he attack and defend from the Resource Row?  If he can’t attack and defend from a Resource Row then say “you can’t flip a Minor Character in the Resource Row”.

You need substantive rules on flipping cards – when, how often, how many cards, why?

You call the Resource Row the “Energy Row” at one point.

Explain the cartouche system.

Again, overall this game looks a LOT like Magic or the Vs. System except for the cartouche system.

Lee,
Holy crap! I can't believe the stuff I missed dude! This is MUCH appreciated! I uploaded a reorganized and re written set of rules. Please! look it over...your help has been phenomenal to this point. I didn't however add information on the cartouche system(which I'll actually just refer to as Icons as the idea progresses).

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/Mangoacid/deej/element.html

Thanks once again lee for your help, and keep it coming! Anyone else? Feel free to join in!

The floor is open!

DJ

"If a player has LESS than 5 cards, that player draws back up to 5 cards in hand."  Is this at the end of the turn only?  It seems like it.  You should probably combine this with the preceding sentence or clarify this sentence or else have a text block that says, "At the end of the turn: a) blah blah blah  b) blah blah blah" to clarify what happens at the end of the turn.

You need to give Major character's "2/0" Strength Armor and Protector's 1 Hit Point.  Make the game and game cards consistent, DJ.  Fix this not only in the rules but on the various graphics.  There is no reason not to leverage these mechanics if you've already introduced them, DJ.

"In order to play any cards from your hand, the Major character must have a Japanese symbol that matches those found in the left corner of the card you wish to play."  Ditch the phrase "from hand" as it causes some confusion about whether or not you can play cards from the energy row without those symbols.

"If it has multiple symbols, the Major Character must also have those same symbols."  Add the word "all", as in "all those same symbols" if that's what you mean.  Otherwise specify that the character has to have ONE of those symbols, if that's what you mean.

Sort of odd mechanic you have setup.  If your character has 20 Strength and mine has 1 armor, my character takes 1 damage.  If my character instead has 0 armor, my character takes 20 damage.  I'm not a fan of this.  I favor a consistent mechanic where the damage done is equal to Strength minus Armor unless there is a strong reason why you want this mechanic.

"If a character has airborne, it may attack the Major Character regardless of whether there is a Protector in play."  I thought somehow Ranged characters or something could block.  Verify your rules on this and fix this if I'm right.  The sentence that is confusing early on is this sentence "This helps to stop an aerial assault against your Major Character."  "Helps to stop" sounds like defending to me, but they can't actually defend.  I'd just lose that "helps to stop" sentence if you want things to sound more consistent.

You don't describe damage reduction, yet you use the term again and note that it can be reduced to zero.

Design hint on icons -- if you are going to consistently use only 4 icons and no more, then space them evenly on the lefthand side of the card and make sure a specific icon always appears in the same place.  That way a player doesn't have to decipher the Kanji, he can just look positionally to determine which icons match his character.  Just a thought.  Your mileage may vary.  This would be unnecessary if the Kanji were in different colors and players could color match, but if they are gonna be in black and white, then you definitely want (in my opinion) some positional way to rapidly sort cards so that you can do it mindlessly without staring intently at each card.

Thanks for the assistance credit, DJ.

alrighty *deep breath*

First off, the artwork for the cards is a PREVIEW, so it's not final design concept. The artwork is still in progress. The rules are being written to make card design easier.

Alright. Thanks again lee for the heads up on things.

Veritas wrote:
"If a player has LESS than 5 cards, that player draws back up to 5 cards in hand." Is this at the end of the turn only? It seems like it. You should probably combine this with the preceding sentence or clarify this sentence or else have a text block that says, "At the end of the turn: a) blah blah blah b) blah blah blah" to clarify what happens at the end of the turn.

Sort of odd mechanic you have setup.  If your character has 20 Strength and mine has 1 armor, my character takes 1 damage.  If my character instead has 0 armor, my character takes 20 damage.  I'm not a fan of this.  I favor a consistent mechanic where the damage done is equal to Strength minus Armor unless there is a strong reason why you want this mechanic.

You don't describe damage reduction, yet you use the term again and note that it can be reduced to zero.

This would be unnecessary if the Kanji were in different colors and players could color match

I'm actually your second set of EARS.  I'm visually impaired, so I end up listening to a lot of your stuff with a text to speech reader.  :-)

I'll review your new version.

I get a "can't find server" error on your new URL.

I have had trouble with your web space since you posted the Element rules.  It's always grumbling about one web error or another.  I surf fine on other sites.

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/Mangoacid

my bad...error in typing. Should be fixed now

"Dual Wield - Dual Wield allows a character to carry two weapons at the loss of a shield.  This can give benefits in combat, but only when attacking."  Change this to "Dual Wield -- If a character with the Dual Wield power is not using a shield he may use up to two weapons.  This is an exception to the normal rule that a character may only have one of each sub-type of Item (see the rules on Items)."

Change the card anatomy picture to say "Card Type" and "Card Sub-Type" instead of "Character Type & Sub-Type" and apply that layout to all cards.

Look through the Item rules and change the "type" word to "sub-type".  You'll have cards that are Type "Item" and Sub-Type "Weapon".  Search throughout the document with a global find and make sure the word "Type" is used consistently.

Can a response eliminate an attacker before it deals damage to its target?  Similarly, what happens if an attack is declared and the defender is somehow eliminated before the attacker and defender deals damage?  Address this if necessary.  

Search your text for words that should be possessive.  No apostrophes are used in lots of places.

"If there are characters in the Protector
must be eliminated before being able to attack the Major Character."  Move that sentence from play phases to the Combat target selection part of the rules.  It'll be clearer there.

By the way, if all minor characters go into the Protector Row, but only certain Minor characters are Protectors, this is bloody confusing.  Probably change this to the "Minor Characters" row.

Since you have many zones of play, come up with a simple diagram (you can use squares and text) showing the play layout that is recommended.

Pick different colors (bright colors) for the Kanji characters in the rules.  They are hard to see right now.  Make them more bold if possible (wider strokes) so that the color is more obvious.

Don't forget to add a hit point total to the minor character in the diagram and in the sample card, and if you add a 2/0 strength/defense score to the major character .

When you redo the character images, make sure the Kanji there matches the color of the Kanji in the rulebook.

Hope that helps.

If you handle these, you are probably pretty close to a workable first draft, DJ.

Lee,
I'm glad to see now that what you're saying it was i'm thinking as I re read rules. I'm catching on to the ideas a lot better now. For instance, I had been trying to figure out a diagram for the zone layout - and it is now in the rules.

Also, I adjusted the image of the Major Chararcter Demo card. It now has 2/0 strength/armor.

I re arranged the rules a bit to make it more coherent and orderly. changed the "Protector Row" to the "Minor Character Row". The reason I hadn't changed it yet was I just added the pretender and protector as separate character sub types, and hadn't made the Row change. Pretenders in the story itself act as though they are the Elements. It's pretty cool, so they will be a major part in the game...protectors will more than likely have the interference ability.

I saw what you meant by the type and sub type, and hopefully I caught it all. Just let me know if It's still not fixed.

Other than that, I think it's all set....take a listen sir and I'm all eyes.

The Floor is Open.

DJ

Sample image (outside of rulebook) still says "Character Type" and "Character Sub-Type".  It should say "Card Type" and "Card Sub-Type".

Use grey lines or colored lines to point out areas of the sample character.  Right now Character Type and Character Life lines look like they converge.

Major Character sample image needs Strength/Armor 2/0. Maybe I'm having web caching problems, but when I looked he wasn't "2/0".

Recommend that Unique discards apply only when you have two "face up" copies, that way you can play a Unique character as a resource face down without obliterating the other face up copy.

Do you have rules on attaching cards?  Even a sentence?  You use the term twice, but don't define it.  I know what you mean, but others might not.  You probably also want to note that attached cards are discarded to the burial ground when the character they are attached to leaves play.

Change "If a character has airborne, it may attack the Major Character directly unless an opponent controls a chararcter with airborne." to "unless the defending player controls", in case you want to expand this to multi-player play.  "An opponent" could be anyone other than the attacker in multiplayer play.

I think your game will have slightly more strategy if you can choose to discard items and inspirations instead of getting "locked into" the first one you play, DJ.

Why can only events be attached to characters instead of all inspirations?

Change "Daramond is Unique. Player 1 plays Daramond. He then later plays a second copy
while one is already in play. They both are sent to the Burial Grounds." to say "while the original one he played is still in play".

Edit this sentence "A) Major Character – These are a representation of the player in the game. If these
characters are destroyed, the player then loses the game."  It reads funny - if "these are destroyed" then "the player loses".  Hmm.  It should probably be "If a player's Major character is destroyed then that player loses the game."

Verify that the rules note that you play a Recruit cost for a card in the Energy Row ONLY when it is first flipped face up.

Regarding matching icons, search for "left corner" and change all mentions to the "upper left corner".

Change this sentence and the one follow it to clarify about ranged attacks.  "Characters WITHOUT airborne may not attack characters with airborne..."  First it says they cannot attack, then it offers an exception.  Use a word like "may not NORMALLY" or say in the sentence following that "as an exception to the previous rule, character with range..."  Something like that.  Portray it as rule and exception rather than rule and contradictory rule.

You probably want to note, if you haven't already, that the game text on face down cards and cards in the burial ground is completely ignored barring an explicit note on a card to the contrary.

You want to note whether the card you get to put into play after an "Exchange" is activated comes in face down or face up.

You may or may not need information on a "stack" or order of operations in case people try to do things at the same time.  Consider this -- your defender has an ability to zap the attacking character and the attacking player has a way to zap the defending character.  What happens?  You don't have a stack or order of operations to handle people fighting to go first.  You can have a simple rule like "Last in First Out", or you can say "the player whose turn it is always decides the order of effects if they are all declared simultaneously".

You need to spell check your document.  It sounds like some of the words were misspelled -- when my text-to-speech reader read them aloud some words were garbled.

Use your find command and search for an "s" followed by a space.  That'll find most of the words ending in an "s".  Check to see if you need apostrophes in front of them.

Beyond that, my original concern still stands: the trade dress and rules look too much like magic the gathering for my comfort.  But the game is interesting -- it's like a cross between Vs. System and Magic in the way it's played.

Well, at least my goal has been met, a Magic/VS Hybrid. That was my essential goal....to use what I preffered from both systems, along with a few of my own greater ideas(the combat systems and the major character), to create what I call a MUT card game system, a large MIX of games in one.

I fixed a few issues, and added the icon for "Exchange". I don't think that I'll make an Icon for Interference however, because I'm not entirely sure what I would use at this point.....other than that, I feel pretty comfortable with the system.

What do ya think lee? I'll start design on cards this week to make some prototypes for play test.....

the floor is open

DJ

Will the Exchange ability actually say "Exchange X" now that you have an Exchange icon?  If not, fix this.

What's the format to let you know you have to exert a card or pay a cost.  Magic uses a colon.  The Vs. System uses a "->" symbol.  You need a rules entry on cost nomenclature.

Again, regarding Unique cards, you need to either define whether this includes face down copies in the energy row (since the game text of face down cards should nominally be "out of play") or whether you only do a Unique check on face up cards.  It doesn't matter how you handle this as long as you explicitly address a face up "in play" card and a face down energy row card.

The attachment rule is insufficient.  It needs to say that cards leave play when the character they are attached to leaves play.  That's just for clarity.

The lines on your card anatomy diagram are hard to read in some places because the lines intersect in some places and are black on black.  For print, I'd go with gray, but for electronic rules, I'd use full color lines that do not intersect in any way.

Attachment rule clarified

Unique rule, was fine, but added one more line to see if that made it any better.

Exert will be signified by the word "EXERT" . I will not use a symbol, I will simply use the word itself.

Fixed the Card diagram to use red lines...figured that red is the most noticable of colors.

I think that about does it....anything else that throws anybody off?

The Floor is Open

DJ

Did you include a section on costing nomenclature.  All you'll need is one or two sentences so that people know what:

Exert -> Add +1 to Armor

or

3: Add +1 to Strength

means

Lee, I did add information on the cost nomenclature in the form of "X : Do Something where x is the cost and "Do Something" is the ability"

It's in the rulebook right now. Double check it and let me know if it's good.

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/Mangoacid

The Floor is Open

DJ