|
2 years ago ::
Sep 21, 2011 - 5:34PM
#11
|
Date Joined:
Sep 17, 2009
|
I think that ganing gold for a destroyed creature is a bit too much of an upside. I understand that it allows one player to replace a destroyed creature; but one could see it as a short-term power tactic, and it isn't a strictly, clearly bad event as it should. (As a reference, Mtg has decks that sacrifices creatures for short term advantage, and it does so willingly.) It should either gain SOME of the creature's level in gold (half of it rouded up/down, kind of a used creature refund) and the other half should be discarded. It would be less beneficial that way, and if you sacrificed creatures for short term advantage you would have to pay it with a greater long term disadvantage (less total gold).
Also, killing creatures makes your opponent lose gold, which is rewarding.
Another rule, (that would have to be developed from this example) is to propose some sort of restriction on creatures that can be played. Basically, you can't play a level 5 creature until the 5th turn, etc. Gaining gold would allow a player to play two standard creatures one turn after the other but not playing a strong creature. (Which I believe it isn't as powerful, but maybe i'm mistaken).
And I think "gold" is a bit weird a term. I wouldn't use "mana" because I don't like the idea of summoning the creatures. Maybe something along the lines of a garrison?
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Sep 21, 2011 - 8:12PM
#12
|
Date Joined:
Oct 17, 2007
|
Any other people find the gold reward when your own creatures are killed to be a little weird?
I understand it as a balancing factor for the game. It helps you get back in the game when you're down a bloke.
When it happens to me, I'm secretly pleased to drop my Lvl 5 monster. When it happens to my opponent, I'm pleased that he's getting closer to having an empty vault. It doesn't make sense for D&D, but it's a feel-good moment for players.
"People want balance but can't accept this homogenization that occurs as a result of that balance being implemented. then they complain that the fighter is weaker than the wizard ad nauseam.: - Teitan
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Sep 22, 2011 - 6:10AM
#13
|
Date Joined:
Aug 11, 2006
|
I agree with Alter_Boy. The gold mechanic is a simple and elegant way to both balance gameplay and track victory. It makes it so that no one is ever really out of the fight. You're able to mette out punishment equal to what you take (in theory) and the combat scales upward instead of downward as the battle continues.
In this way, the game is very similar to Magic, instead of a typical Skirmish game, and I think this is one of its greatest strengths. Instead of putting all of your forces on the map from the start, and then watching your resources dwindle with each passing turn, you are constantly ramping up to bigger and better stuff, which makes the game a lot more fun to play.
On a side note, I want to say that this is why I really like the "fill your hand" rule for playing creatures. It makes swarm tactics viable becuase, no matter how much gold you have, you'll always be able to play something. That is, if I'm interpreting the rule correctly.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Sep 22, 2011 - 9:48AM
#14
|
Date Joined:
Jul 25, 2002
|
On a side note, I want to say that this is why I really like the "fill your hand" rule for playing creatures. It makes swarm tactics viable becuase, no matter how much gold you have, you'll always be able to play something. That is, if I'm interpreting the rule correctly.
That's the intention, but I'm checking one thing: are you filling your hand at the end of the turn (limiting the # of creatures deployed to 3/round) or are you drawing immediately after playing a new creature?
Peter Lee
Tabletop Games Designer/Developer
Dungeons & Dragons R&D
Wizards of the Coast
Twitter: @minipete
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Sep 22, 2011 - 11:45AM
#15
|
|
|
How many creatures can be deployed per turn? As many as you have gold for, or only one per turn? This question was asked and the reply appears to be only one per turn, community.wizards.com/dnd_playtesting/go...But the rules use the term "creatures" which would imply up to your full hand of three. "3. Deploy Phase: Deploy any new creatures."
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Sep 22, 2011 - 9:56PM
#16
|
|
|
That's the intention, but I'm checking one thing: are you filling your hand at the end of the turn (limiting the # of creatures deployed to 3/round) or are you drawing immediately after playing a new creature?
I play it as filling my hand at the end of the turn. We also noticed the discrepancy highlighted by gobblinal but am playing strictly according to the rules - creatureS.
As I mentioned, imho the Gold concept is acceptable but just maybe needs a change of name to Army/Skirmish/Warband Points and Vault to Reinforcements.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Sep 23, 2011 - 11:47AM
#17
|
|
|
How many creatures can be deployed per turn? As many as you have gold for, or only one per turn?
This question was asked and the reply appears to be only one per turn,
community.wizards.com/dnd_playtesting/go...
But the rules use the term "creatures" which would imply up to your full hand of three.
"3. Deploy Phase: Deploy any new creatures."
The answer to that linked question: "when you spend gold to deploy a new creature can it only be one of the three creature cards in your hand ? [Answer: Correct]" just means that you can't deploy a creature card that's NOT in your hand. The question did NOT ask how many creatures can be deployed in one turn.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Sep 26, 2011 - 6:00AM
#18
|
Date Joined:
Aug 11, 2006
|
On a side note, I want to say that this is why I really like the "fill your hand" rule for playing creatures. It makes swarm tactics viable becuase, no matter how much gold you have, you'll always be able to play something. That is, if I'm interpreting the rule correctly.
That's the intention, but I'm checking one thing: are you filling your hand at the end of the turn (limiting the # of creatures deployed to 3/round) or are you drawing immediately after playing a new creature?
We've done both. With these warbands, it's not really a big deal, as the chance to overwhelm an opponent with a ridiculous number of creatures isn't particularly high. But I could see why it might be an issue for a more optimized deck.
Honestly, since you only draw one ability card per turn, I'm wondering if it would actually be okay to give the players an endless stream of creatures to draw from (until they run out of deck, at least). The creatures won't be as effective without abilities to back them up. And, when it comes to the more midrange decks, allowing the player to draw immediately after playing his creature simply gives him more options, which is never a bad thing when it comes to gameplay.
Have you guys had trouble with swarm-based squads during playtest? What are the rules for building a warband deck anyway?
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Sep 27, 2011 - 12:23AM
#19
|
Date Joined:
Aug 10, 2005
|
I also find the gold thing a little wierd.
I know if I'm playing the heros and the dragon is in my first draw, my 7 levels of of creatures get all gung-ho and fling themselves at the enemy with little regard for personal safety!
The language works but your creatures dying is both a punishment and a reward at the same time. Gold generally implies a reward. If you called them 'Deployment Points' they would function just the same.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Oct 11, 2011 - 1:45PM
#20
|
Date Joined:
Feb 13, 2008
|
The gold is easy to justify if you look at the creatures as hired thugs/mercenaries (and isn't this what 99% of adventurers really are? Hired goonery drives the D&D economy) Consider the X gold needed to deploy a critter to be the X gold needed to hire them, except you clearly aren't paying them up front. They die, you don't have to pay them. Works for me. 
|
|
|
