|
|
Darkash
Tavern Dweller
|
posted September 04, 2005 10:48 PM |
|
|
"Advanced" Rules
As a fan of this game, and someone who would love to see it succeed, I have a question/suggestion. Is there any "recommended" setup for advanced rules? In other words, are there advanced rules that are recommended for use more then others. I ask because if you want this to get anywhere near the level of MTG, you need to have some set level of rules. No "serious" CCG player (term used loosely) wants to build a deck, go to a tournament, and find out that a rule is in effect that hurts his deck. (The ranged combat advanced rules for firing on the enemy's ranged line come to mind) I understand that this is intended to be set by the TO. However, games such as MTG and Pokemon (Yes, it is succeeding, stop snickering) succeed because you can go to a tournament anywhere from NYC to LA and play with the same rules. If something similar is not set up for HMM, I'm worried about the game's long tern success. Just a thought, and maybe it's already been taken care of, I don't know.
____________
|
|
thefoehammer
Known Hero
|
|
posted September 05, 2005 03:45 AM |
|
|
|
At Origins and Gencon we were playing with Luck, Morale, Flying Armies and Diplomacy. Tournament Organizers will need to announce in a forum or some other public method and post what rules they will allow. For major conferences DGA will probably post it in the description the way other games that have both advanced and optional rules do.
|
|
Darkash
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted September 05, 2005 05:49 AM |
|
|
You see, though, that is just the problem. The public forum part. Just because it is announced, it dosen't mean that it will be known. For example, in Pokemon, there is what is called the "Modified"" format (Basically, a restriction on the sets allowed to be used, i.e. MTG's Blocks). This is the format in use for each and every tournament, except for an extremely few "Unlimited" tournaments. And yet, at seemingly every major tournament I've been to, there's always a person or two who bring illegal decks, and then are dissapointed when they can't play the deck they have brought. And that's when the rules in Pokemon don't change, aside from yearly changes in the list of sets allowed. (A whole different kettle of fish) A CCG where the rules are inheriently variable from tournment to tournament is risky at best, simply because people are lazy. Whether or not the rules for a given tournment are posted, some just won't find out about it. Now, of course it is their responsibility to find out about what rules are in effect. However, that won't stop them from pointing out (and truthfully so) that: "Well, when I played at such-and-such a tournment, we used the Potion of Immortality rule", for example. And many of them won't bother showing up again, as sad and stupid as that sounds. On a more pragmatic note, do any successful CCG's have variable rules like HMM's in serious tournment play? My experience is somewhat narrow. I know MTG, Pokemon, Yu-Gi-Oh (ugh!) all don't have variable rules such as these. Now, I'm not saying: "Ok, we should dump these rules in every tournment, forget they exist" However, a set series of tournament rules might not be a bad idea, at least for major tournments. That way, at least fewer people will be showing up ignorant of the rules. (Man, does that get old at Pokemon tournaments: "What's Modified? No, I haven't bought any cards since 1999. Why are you looking at me like that?" Sigh.) Of course, some "Advanced" rules will always be in effect, since they are referenced on the cards in some way or another: i.e. Morale and Luck. Flying armies are another one, and Diplomacy is impossible to avoid anyway.
BTW, I was at Origins. I played an Order deck in the preview tournment against a guy named Stan; you? He played a Nature deck that managed to beat me. (Actually, I quit after I blew an 80% roll, but I was almost late for my Pokemon Mutant Sealed anyway.)
____________
|
|
doc8466
Known Hero
Event Coordinator Annapolis MD
|
|
posted September 05, 2005 03:07 PM |
|
|
Darkash,
I see what you're saying. If there were a predetermined "level" of tournament, each could be set to include whichever advanced rules DGA chose. For example, in .hack//ENEMY there are local events, "Premier Series" events, Territorial events, Continental events and finally the World Championship.
Let's say DGA decided on just 3 levels; local, regional, Worlds. Local events would use morale, luck, flight (since they are used anyway by certain cards and can't really be excluded) and Potions of Immortality, Reionals would have the local level rules EXCEPT Potions of Immortality, but include Distance Penalties, Buying Heroes of Other Alignments and Letting Dead Heroes Lie. The highest tier would use neither of the hero saving options, Native & Special Terrains, Diplomacy and Trading Resources.
Now I'm sure we can go round and round discussing which rules should be included at which level, but I think this is the basic gist you're talking about. Right?
Then of course there could be events advertised as following Reginal or Worlds advanced rule sets, just like MtG has it's various formats.
What do you think?
|
|
thefoehammer
Known Hero
|
|
posted September 05, 2005 03:53 PM |
|
|
Jonathan has mentioned that there is a whole set of guidelines coming for Organized Play. I would imagine the "official" play will have something set like that.
Occassionally though a TO will want to run something special based on the input of the local group. In the LOTR minis game we do that a lot. As the TO I make sure I bring additional figures for loan to help new players that may not have seen the special rules posted in the store or on the forums.
I can see where you are coming from, but I think we have to wait and see what comes in the tournament guidelines.
|
|
Remberasha
Tavern Dweller
Naga Hide Merchant
|
|
posted September 05, 2005 05:23 PM |
|
|
Tournaments --
Well of course there will be standards on tournament play. Most likely a code system as well for a quick reference. I'm sure this would be posted on the conventiions/stores/events website and in the program guides in their games tournament section. Also if DGA sponsored the tourny then I'm most sure that a post would be on all DGA message boards. It took MTG a long time to establish their first Tourny standards as well.
An example might be:
===========================================
HoMM-IV CCG&T - 3:00pm Fri / Berkshire Room
60 Card Decks - L/M/F/A/D Rules in effect
( Not allowed - Potion of Immortality )
===========================================
Of course during current tournaments (the few that there are now), the best way to handle it is to let the 2 opponents decide on which rules to use. This would be a system where both players agree (mutually) as to which advanced rules are in place. If both players cannot agree on a rule then that rule is not in place for that round. This would of course have to be the very first thing of the round before announcing decks, info, etc.
For now there are mostly demos so it really isn't an issue. But yes - Standards will be needed quite soon. This is obviously going to be a well played game at conventions.
I'm also sure Jonathan very much welcomes such input from all the people here. He loves ideas to help make this game rock...So keep those suggestions coming..
See ya' on the battlefields..
Tom
|
|
doc8466
Known Hero
Event Coordinator Annapolis MD
|
|
posted September 05, 2005 05:28 PM |
|
|
This may be a good time to bring up another tournament issue that was talked about at GENCON...length of time to finish a match. It's easy to see where a simple 3-4 person game can take 4+ hours (see my post under the "sessions" thread) and for those who were at GENCON, the finals started at 8:00 PM and finished around 2:00 AM. Figuring that a tournament attracts more than 4-5 people (in which case a single game would suffice to make the "tournament") the TO has to run a first round and finals. I'd say it's reasonable to have a tournament last 6 hours. This forces the 2 rounds to be completed in about 3 hrs each.
The idea being kicked around at GENCON was a scoring system similar to the PC game, where quickness of victory awards a higher score. That would work if you had multiple games going on at once and didn't want to have a round 2...Highest winning score wins tourney.
The other idea was a turn deck. After determining an avg turn length (turn defined as each player making his play steps), decide on how many turns to have in a given game. Let's guess that one turn takes 3 minutes. Set the turn deck with 40 cards to make a *roughly* 2 hr game. Highest score wins when time is called. This could prove very interesting, as it gets closer to the end of a game, if it's clear who is ahead on points and the other gang up on him! Then again, it could prove boring if someone accumulates a good number of points then hides playing defense and building as large an army as he can.
Who else has ideas on that subject?
|
|
thefoehammer
Known Hero
|
|
posted September 05, 2005 08:09 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Who else has ideas on that subject?
I think that there will need to be time limits at a lot of venues so an alternate victory is necessary.
One way to alleviate the problem of someone turtling and trying to accumulate points might be to base the timed victory on who has the highest level hero when time is called, if no one has achieved victory at that point.
This will encourage players to come out and take more chances since a hero can't level up unless he or she wins a battle.
If two or more players have the same level hero when time is called, then use the number of living units they have as the second tiebreaker, giving a weighted score for the higher level units based on their level (6 points for level 4, 4 points for level 3, 2 for Lvl 2 and 1 for 1, and additional heroes would be worth 3 points).
So first you encourage regular victory, then you tie break with hero's level, then you tie break with army size. What do you think?
|
|
doc8466
Known Hero
Event Coordinator Annapolis MD
|
|
posted September 14, 2005 06:17 PM |
|
|
TFH,
What if instead of the second tie break being army size, it's # of levels of units/heroes defeated? Again it's going to be a pain to track who's killed what, but I keep coming back to finding some way to reward winning fights.
|
|
TheFoeHammer
Known Hero
|
|
posted September 14, 2005 08:36 PM |
|
|
Quote:
TFH,
What if instead of the second tie break being army size, it's # of levels of units/heroes defeated? Again it's going to be a pain to track who's killed what, but I keep coming back to finding some way to reward winning fights.
I think the tracking is really hard and I think that the level of the hero is already going a long way to reward the player for successful combats. The tie-breaker is only a minor occurrence anyway. So to have elaborate tracking for it would seem a waste in many games. Maybe a second tie-breaker could be locations controlled.
But all this is kind of moot anyway with the other point system proposed. ;-)
|
|
doc8466
Known Hero
Event Coordinator Annapolis MD
|
|
posted September 15, 2005 02:12 AM |
|
|
|
Tru'nuf. But I'd like to see something that promotes fighting between players. Everyone's going to beat down the random guards and make level 4-5 or so, so I don't see there being much difference between heroes unless heroes fight each other. Do you think gaining a level and getting no other credit for the fight is enough to promote fighting?
|
|
thefoehammer
Known Hero
|
|
posted September 15, 2005 04:44 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Tru'nuf. But I'd like to see something that promotes fighting between players. Everyone's going to beat down the random guards and make level 4-5 or so, so I don't see there being much difference between heroes unless heroes fight each other. Do you think gaining a level and getting no other credit for the fight is enough to promote fighting?
No but fighting each other should reduce the loser's army size. That's why I was thinking about the second tie-breaker.
|
| |
|
|
